Preamble

The House met at Eleven o'Clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

Oral Answers to Questions — SHIPBUILDING

Russian Orders

Mr. Page: asked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he will grant licences to shipbuilders in this country to build ships for the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics similar to the 10 cargo vessels of 5,000 tons each ordered by the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics from France.

The First Lord of the Admiralty (Mr. J. P. L. Thomas): Certainly, I would grant licences for such ships, but I know of no such order negotiated by British shipbuilders.

Mr. Page: Is my right hon. Friend aware of the concern in British shipyards that the stringent application of the strategic goods order in this country and the rather looser application of such rules in continental shipyards is putting British shipyards at a disadvantage? Can he say whether there is any justification for that concern?

Mr. Thomas: I have no evidence of that. Our rules are pretty generous. I have no evidence that our shipyards are being penalised in this way, but I have received no request for licences.

Mr. Shinwell: Can the First Lord explain why it is that other N.A.T.O. countries with whom we are associated can accept such orders from the Soviet Union while British shipbuilders are prevented from accepting them?

Mr. Thomas: The point I made, and which I repeat to the right hon. Gentleman, is that we have not yet been offered them.

Mr. Shinwell: I beg the right hon. Gentleman not to be evasive. It seems

that there is some evasion in this matter, perhaps unwitting. On the assumption that British shipbuilders had the opportunity of tendering for the construction of vessels for the Soviet Union, would any exception be taken by the Admiralty?

Mr. Thomas: Only on strategic grounds. There is another Question on the Paper dealing with this point.

Mr. H. Wilson: Is it not a fact that these restrictions are tighter in this country than in certain other countries? Does the right hon. Gentleman deny that? My second question is perhaps more important. Is it not a fact that even within the present strategic restrictions permitted by the Government, shipbuilders are deliberately boycotting Soviet orders?

Mr. Thomas: I have no evidence of it. I can only say that I have not received any applications.

Mr. Bing: asked the First Lord of the Admiralty (1) why British shipyards are not permitted to accept orders from the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics for merchant ships with a speed of over 12 knots;
(2) why British shipyards are not permitted to accept orders from the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics for floating cranes, dredgers, and suction-dredgers.

Mr. J. P. L. Thomas: There are no such prohibitions.

Mr. Bing: Has the right hon. Gentleman seen the speech made in Manchester recently by the Soviet Ambassador in which he made this allegation, and will the right hon. Gentleman take steps to see that the position is made clear to the Soviet Trade Mission here?

Mr. Thomas: Certainly. I have not seen the report of the speech which the hon. and learned Member mentions, but I will look it up. I hope that my answer will be a sufficient reply.

Mr. H. Wilson: Does the right hon. Gentleman recall that when I asked him whether the Admiralty was running a small private strategic list of its own, in contradistinction to that of the Board of Trade, he denied the existence of such a list? Is he aware that, apart from one shipbuilder in Newport whose contracts have been turned down by the Admiralty


on strategic grounds, for the rest Admiralty officials have actually been pressing shipbuilders in this country to take Soviet orders, as I have been informed by the Board of Trade, and that it is the shipbuilders themselves who are refusing to take these large orders?

Mr. Thomas: I was unaware of what the right hon. Member tells me. My knowledge does not lead me to believe that shipbuilders are not anxious to have these orders. My position is that I have not received any request for licences.

Mr. Hector Hughes: Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that this matter has added urgency by reason of the lack of forward orders to be executed in the shipyards next year and the following years? On account of that, the shipyards may in those years be threatened with grave unemployment, particularly the Scottish shipyards.

Mr. Thomas: Yes, and although the immediate future is not as bad as some rumours have it, I am watching the future and am by no means complacent about it. Orders like these will be a great help.

Mr. Bing: asked the First Lord of the Admiralty which categories of vessels, contained in the list given by the Foreign Trade Minister of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics to British businessmen in February last, a copy of which is in his possession, may now be ordered from British shipyards.

Mr. J. P. L. Thomas: Provided they do not incorporate any features of special military importance, all types of ship on that list may be supplied except tankers, whaling factories, whale catchers and floating docks.

Mr. Bing: On what ground is a whale catcher regarded as a strategic vessel?

Mr. Thomas: It is capable of conversion to an anti-submarine vessel or a mine layer.

Mr. H. Wilson: In view of the confusion which obtains on this question about what shipbuilders can and cannot do, will not the right hon. Gentleman call the shipbuilders together? In view of the fact that in the recent wage claims they said they could not give higher wages because their order books were so short, will the right hon. Gentleman bring to their attention the fact that there

are these orders waiting for them in the Soviet Union which the Government are prepared to accept?

Mr. Thomas: I do not know if they are waiting for orders, but I will certainly take an opportunity of meeting the shipbuilders and will have this matter put on the agenda for discussion.

Clydeside

Mr. Rankin: asked the First Lord of the Admiralty if he is aware of the decline in shipbuilding orders on Clydeside; if he is further aware that not more than 50,000 tons of new orders have been booked this year, and that the cancellation of an order for two new tankers to be built by Messrs. John Brown practically wipes out this total; and what steps he is taking to arrest this decline in order to bring a good New Year to the Clyde.

Mr. J. P. L. Thomas: I am aware that the rate at which orders for new merchant ships are being placed on the Clyde is at present well below the current rate of output from the shipyards and that some orders placed in 1951 and 1952 have been cancelled. In spite of this, on 1st October, 1954, the Clyde shipbuilding industry had 81 ships of 620,000 gross tons under construction and orders for 99 ships of 655,000 gross tons on which work is still to be started. I hope that shipbuilders on the Clyde, as elsewhere, will be fortunate in their negotiations for new orders in 1955. My information is that there has been a slight improvement recently in the rate of ordering.

Mr. Rankin: Will the Minister note that in 1951 the number of orders booked on the Clyde amounted to 1,200,000 tons? That was the last year in which the Labour Government were in power. In 1953 the number of orders booked on Clydeside amounted to 100,000 tons. Does not the Minister agree that that is a most serious decline in the bookings of new orders? Will he do his best to watch this very grave tendency and remove whatever barriers exist at present to the booking of new shipbuilding orders?

Mr. Thomas: I think that the figures given for 1951 are hardly unconnected with the Korean war. I think that that played a very large part in the matter. However, I assure the hon. Gentleman that I am not complacent about this subject and will certainly watch the matter.

Oral Answers to Questions — ROYAL NAVY

Japanese Fishing Vessels (Siberian Coast)

Mr. Edward Evans: asked the First Lord of the Admiralty why vessels of the Royal Navy have been instructed to protect five Japanese fishing fleets, manned by Japanese crews, during fishing operations off the Siberian coast next year.

Mr. J. P. L. Thomas: No such instructions have been issued.

Mr. Evans: Has the right hon. Gentleman read the copy of the "Fishing News" which I sent to him? Would he, in consequence of his answer, consult the Foreign Secretary in order to give a categorical denial to the rumour, which has been published and displayed in one of the most responsible of the fishing newspapers? Is he aware that his answer will give a great deal of satisfaction to reasonable people everywhere?

Mr. Thomas: I hope that the answer I have given this morning will be a sufficient denial. Not only have no instructions of this kind been issued, but we do not intend to issue such instructions in the future.

Electricity Transmission Lines, Caithness (Admiralty Objections)

Sir D. Robertson: asked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he is aware that farmers and landholders at Bower Smerral, Bower Whitegar and Mum, Castletown, all in Caithness, are unable to obtain supplies of electricity from the North of Scotland Hydro-Electric Board, due to the high cost of undergrounding the cables to meet the requirements of the Admiralty; and if he will consider meeting the extra cost involved.

Mr. J. P. L. Thomas: The North of Scotland Hydro-Electric Board applied to my right hon. Friend the Minister of Fuel and Power for his consent to the placing of electric cables above ground for supply of electricity to the areas in question. The Admiralty was obliged to object to this because of the interference to naval wireless installations in the neighbourhood. The question whether or not supply can be made without the use of overground cables is for the Hydro-Electric Board. In such a case

as this, where the placing or use of over-ground cables would interfere with the operation of existing installations, there are no grounds for the owners of the existing installations making any contribution towards the additional cost of laying cable underground.

Sir D. Robertson: Is it not a fact that there are 48 farmers here who have been waiting for years for light and power, which this House has brought to them under the North of Scotland Hydro-Electric Act? Is not the Board only too willing to give them electricity, but for this very essential defence cost of£10,000—which everyone in Caithness realises is right—in order that these cables should be placed underground? The Board cannot stand the cost, which would amount to a substantial sum per head. Is it not reasonable that the Admiralty should assume this defence cost?

Mr. Thomas: I am sorry that I am unable to help my hon. Friend in my answer today. The cost is very great indeed. This is not the only case. Although I am prepared to discuss the matter again with my right hon. Friend the Minister of Fuel and Power, I cannot hold out much hope that we can come to an agreement satisfactory to my hon. Friend.

Mr. Noel-Baker: Is it not generally agreed that the supply of electricity is most desirable in order to keep farmers on the land and to increase food production, for which there is a very great need? This is clearly a defence cost. Surely the Admiralty ought to meet it.

Mr. Thomas: I will discuss this question once more with my right hon. Friend the Minister of Fuel and Power, but this is only one example of what would lead to very great cost indeed on the Service Vote. It is a matter for the Hydro-Electric Board.

Mr. Noel-Baker: Does not the right hon. Gentleman agree that the supply would be welcomed by many farmers and that it would lead to a large increase in the production of food?

Mr. Bing: Does not the right hon. Gentleman agree that he is taxing people, chosen quite arbitrarily, to pay the costs of his Department, and should he not do something about this?

Repair Yard, Belfast (Redundancies)

Mr. Hobson: asked the First Lord of the Admiralty what answer he gave to the trade union side of the Admiralty Industrial Council of 18th November to the request that discharges should be deferred until the end of the year at the Royal Naval Repair Yard at Belfast; and what steps he is taking to transfer work there to avoid further redundancy and unemployment.

Mr. J. P. L. Thomas: The position remains as described in the answer given by my hon. Friend the Civil Lord to my hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, East (Mr. McKibbin) and my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Belfast, North (Lieut.-Colonel Hyde) on 27th November.

Mr. Hobson: As there is now redundancy at the Royal Naval Repair Yard in Belfast and there is considerable unemployment amongst engineers in Belfast and Northern Ireland generally, particularly in Newry and Larne, will the right hon. Gentleman approach other Government Departments to ensure that work is allocated to Northern Ireland? Will he also see that some of the work is transferred from other dockyards to Belfast in order to give employment to these highly skilled workers?

Mr. Thomas: I cannot give a definite promise on that last point, but I can assure the hon. Member that the Government Departments concerned are constantly in touch on this problem of unemployment in Northern Ireland, which we know is serious. I am sorry that these men had to leave this yard, but the work was not there. After all, only 5 per cent. of the men employed in the yard were found to be redundant.

Mr. McKibbin: Is my right hon. Friend aware that I have taken this matter up with the Admiralty on several occasions since 17th November? Is he also aware that, while I welcome help in this matter from hon. Members on the Opposition benches and, indeed, from any quarter, most of the people concerned are my constituents?

Mr. Robens: In view of the very alarming high level of unemployment in Northern Ireland, will the right hon. Gentleman say what conversations he has had with the Home Secretary who has

special responsibility for Northern Ireland in connection with this matter?

Mr. Thomas: The Home Secretary is the person who calls us together. I have been in touch with the Ministers concerned, and of course our officials in the various Departments are in touch with each other on the subject. It is being very closely watched.

Mr. Robens: I have no doubt that the contracts are extremely valuable, but may we know the outcome of the contracts? So far, it has meant increasing unemployment in Northern Ireland, and in the case of the right hon. Gentleman's own particular responsibility unemployment came at a very unhappy time of the year, towards Christmas and the New Year. It seems to me that the contacts that have been made have not produced very good results.

Mr. Thomas: We are placed in a very great difficulty. I am sorry that these redundancies have occurred at this time of the year, but the work was not there and could not be found for these people. The employers were hardly justified in keeping this small 5 per cent. of the total number of workers.

Malicious Damage

Lieut.-Colonel Lipton: asked the First Lord of the Admiralty how many cases of sabotage have occurred in each of the past three years; and in how many cases the culprits have not been discovered.

Mr. J. P. L. Thomas: If by sabotage is meant acts intended to assist a foreign Power by harming the State, there is no evidence to suggest that any such incidents have occurred in the Royal Navy during the past three years. In 1952 there were 12 cases of malicious damage; in 1953, 33; and in 1954, 40. The culprit was not discovered in 12, 25 and 27 cases in each of these years respectively.

Lieut.-Colonel Lipton: Does not the right hon. Gentleman think that the deplorable increase of malicious damage, which is what I mean by sabotage, Shows that morale is in a very bad way in the Navy and worse than it has been for years past? Is the right hon. Gentleman not aware that further evidence of this poor morale is to be found in the disastrous fall in recruiting and the desire


of certain personnel to get out of the Service as soon as possible? What is the right hon. Gentleman doing to stop the rot?

Mr. Thomas: I do not accept the hon. Gentleman's statement about morale in the Navy. I think the House would be glad to hear that over half of the cases of malicious damage during the last year took place in the first quarter of the year and the numbers are now declining very steeply. That, I hope, is due to certain steps taken by the Admiralty in the early part of the year, to increases in pay, the general service commission scheme, the sea-going local overseas allowance and the reopening of discharge by purchase.

Mr. Callaghan: Whether the First Lord accepts my hon. and gallant Friend's strictures or not, is it not the case that very responsible people, including my hon. and gallant Friend, believe that there is a decline in morale in the Royal Navy at present and that it is due to the failure to give the Navy a rôle to fulfil? Will he please direct his attention to that?

Mr. Thomas: I hope that the hon. Member read a speech which I made on that very point a fortnight ago. There will be plenty of opportunities shortly to make more speeches on the subject.

Mr. Bottomley: The right hon. Gentleman mentioned specifically the Royal Navy. May I assume that he intended to cover the Royal Dockyards, too?

Mr. Thomas: Yes.

Lieut.-Colonel Lipton: In view of the unsatisfactory nature of the reply, I beg to give notice that I shall raise the subject on the Adjournment at an early date.

Aircraft Carriers (Design)

Mr. Emrys Hughes: asked the First Lord of the Admiralty to what extent his technical advisers have studied the design of aircraft carriers built for the United States Navy; and what account he takes of such designs in assessing design requirements for aircraft carriers for the British Navy.

Mr. J. P. L. Thomas: My technical advisers keep in close touch with those of the United States. Frequent discussions take place, and the development and

design of aircraft carriers and their equipment takes account of the best features available from either Navy within the limits of the resources available.

Mr. Hughes: Would the Minister tell us whether his technical advisers have studied the design of the latest aircraft carrier built in the U.S.A., which is estimated to have cost£70 million? Can he give an assurance that he will not adopt any such design as that? Can he also inform us whether Lord Montgomery has been authorised to conduct any negotiations on behalf of the Admiralty? Has he seen the argument between Lord Montgomery and the American Secretary of State for the Navy? Can he give us some enlightenment about this controversy which is raging in America?

Mr. Thomas: I do not propose to tell the hon. Member what our building programme is The Estimates will tell him. I think I can fairly safely give an assurance that we are not likely to build carriers such as the one which he has mentioned, the "Forrestal," but in our carrier programme we are in the forefront of all countries, both in development and design, I am glad to say. Costly though the "Forrestal" was—and we had not to pay for it—I am glad to say that it included such British developments as the angled flight deck and the mirror deck-landing device. Turning to the second part of the Question, Lord Montgomery was not speaking for the British Navy, as the hon. Member will have realised. He was answered very thoroughly by my opposite number in the United States, and I myself answered him the other day.

H.M. Yacht "Britannia"

Mr. Emrys Hughes: asked the First Lord of the Admiralty (1) how many days the "Britannia" is to be away from port during her forthcoming visit to Caribbean waters; how many officers and men will be on board; what will be their pay for this period; what is the cost of their maintenance; what is the cost of fuel; and what he estimates to be the total cost of this voyage;
(2) how long it is proposed that the "Britannia" is to spend in Mediterranean waters; what is the estimated cost; and what are the future movements of this ship.

Mr. J. P. L. Thomas: Her Majesty's Yacht "Britannia" is to leave Portsmouth on 18th January; she will arrive at Gibraltar on the return journey from the Caribbean on 8th March. Twenty-two officers and 249 ratings will be on board. Their pay during the period will amount to£16,000 and the cost of their maintenance will be£2,900. It is estimated that the fuel used will cost between£10,000 and£11,000. The Royal Yacht is expected to stay in the Mediterranean until about 26th March. Her Majesty's instructions for the yacht's subsequent programme have not yet been received.
I am afraid I cannot give realistic estimates of the total costs of these two voyages. The greater part of the expenditure would anyway have been incurred as a consequence of the decision to have a Royal Yacht in commission—a decision welcomed by the Board of Admiralty and, I am sure, by this House

Mr. Hughes: Is the Minister aware that the House is not as enthusiastic about the very great expenditure on this vessel as he has suggested? Is he aware that, in addition to the "Britannia" going to the Caribbean, a strato-cruiser aircraft has been chartered at an enormous cost? Does he not think that this expenditure needs to be thoroughly scrutinised with a view to saving the taxpayers' money?

Mr. Thomas: The question about the aircraft is one affecting my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Colonies in connection with a tour to which I know the Colonial Office attaches the greatest importance. To send out the yacht on this occasion is considerably cheaper than chartering another suitable ship, which would have been necessary had the yacht itself not been available.

Mr. Smithers: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the officers and men of the Royal Navy will welcome any opportunity to go to sea—and that this is a good opportunity—and that I shall be very content if they will take the hon. Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Emrys Hughes) with them?

Oral Answers to Questions — POST OFFICE

Savings Bank Withdrawals

Mr. Dodds: asked the Assistant Postmaster-General in what year it was first authorised that£3 could be with-

drawn on demand from the Post Office Savings Bank; what that amount is worth on present-day values; and if he will give consideration to increasing the amount that can be withdrawn on demand.

The Assistant Postmaster-General (Mr. David Gammans): The limit of£3 was authorised in 1929. I am advised by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer that its equivalent in purchasing power today is about£6 13s. We shall continue to review the limit from time to time. I would, however, remind the hon. Member that before the war books had to be surrendered after every demand withdrawal.

Telegraph Money Orders (Encashment)

Mr. Callaghan: asked the Assistant Postmaster-General (1) why he does not insist upon some proof of identity before Post Offices cash telegraphic money orders in view of the opportunities for forging and impersonation afforded by the present system;
(2) what recompense he will make to an Arab seaman, whose case he knows, who has been robbed of£100 after his Department had failed to deliver a telegraphed money order to a responsible person aboard ship, and the seamen's mark has been subsequently forged at the Post Office by an impersonator.

Mr. Gammans: The essential proof upon which the Post Office relies is the ability of the person presenting a telegraph money order to give correctly and convincingly the name of the sender. This test has served well over very many years, and we have no evidence that it is inadequate. Exhaustive inquiries have been made in the case to which the hon. Member refers, and we are unable to accept the allegation either that the telegrams were incorrectly delivered or that there was any failure to take proper precautions at the time of payment. I regret, therefore, that no compensation can be paid.

Mr. Callaghan: As the hon. Member told me in correspondence that he cannot say to whom the telegraph orders were delivered, how can he possibly claim that there was no negligence? Why should we accept a lower standard of proof in a matter like this than that which would be accepted by an ordinary commercial


bank? This is a large sum of money; and one could not just walk into a commercial bank and cash an order for£100.

Mr. Gammans: This Post Office practice has been accepted and has proved satisfactory—

Mr. Callaghan: It is not satisfactory.

Mr. Gammans: —for many years. I am sure the hon. Member will agree that this case is a somewhat odd one. We are dealing with an Arab seaman—

Mr. Callaghan: Who is illiterate.

Mr. Gammans: —and the telegram was delivered, as is usual in such cases, to the ship's officers.

Mr. Callaghan: No.

Mr. Gammans: Four months went by before anything whatever was said. It was not until after four months that the matter was raised at all.

Mr. Callaghan: If the hon. Member bases his case on the four months' delay, may I ask him whether he is not aware that this Arab seaman is at the moment in Australia, and, because he is illiterate, is having very great difficulty in getting his case across to the Post Office? Does not the hon. Gentleman feel that there is some moral obligation on him in that he cannot prove to whom this sum was delivered? He has told me in correspondence, not that it was delivered to the ship's officers, but that he cannot say to whom it was delivered. If the Post Office do not ask to see a seaman's discharge book, which is an elementary precaution, does he not feel that it at least has some moral obligation in this matter?

Mr. Gammans: I have every sympathy with this case. I have looked at it very carefully and sympathetically. The fact is that with this telegraph money order we have followed the normal procedure which we always follow in these cases—that is to deliver to a ship's officer. That was done in this particular case.

Mr. Shinwell: In view of the fact that the seaman could only make his mark because he was illiterate, or assumed to be illiterate, was it not a defect on the part of the Post Office not to have asked for proof of identity by asking for his discharge book? If the discharge book had been asked for the man could have

probably applied for the money therefore, is not the Post Office at fault to some extent?

Mr. Gammans: No, Sir, I do not think so. I take it that the right hon. Gentleman is concerned now with the actual cashing of the money order. That was done and the clerk who cashed the money order satisfied himself, according to the procedure in force for many years, that this was the man entitled to it.

Mr. Callaghan: In view of the fact that I have been unable to clear up this matter satisfactorily by correspondence and in view of the unsatisfactory attitude of the hon. Gentleman this morning, I beg to give notice that I must raise the matter on the Adjournment.

Sub-Offices, Aberdeen (Northfield and Mastrick)

Mr. Hector Hughes: asked the Assistant Postmaster-General if he is aware of the need for a post office in the large and rapidly-growing residential areas of Northfield and Mastrick in Aberdeen; and if he will take immediate steps to rectify this.

Mr. Gammans: Yes, Sir. It is intended to open a sub-post office in each area as soon as there are any shops.

Mr. Hughes: May I be allowed to thank the hon. Gentleman for that answer?

Oral Answers to Questions — TELEPHONE SERVICE

Installations

Dr. King: asked the Assistant Postmaster-General how many new telephones were installed in each of the years 1951, 1952 and 1953.

Mr. Gammans: The figures to 30th September of each year are: 1951, 344,000; 1952, 324,000; 1953, 346,000; 1954, 395,000. This 1954 figure is a record, but we plan a substantial further increase next year.

Dr. King: Is the Minister aware that these figures show an increase in production and productivity which compare with those of any other industry in the country and reflect great credit on the highly-skilled engineers who serve him?

Mr. Gammans: I think they do. The difficulty about telephones today is the abnormal demand, about which the hon. Member will be as pleased as I am, for it is a reflection of the general prosperity of the country.

Mr. W. R. Williams: Will the Assistant Postmaster-General see that some of this increased production is applied to Audenshaw and Denton, where nothing seems to be happening?

Storm Damage

Dr. King: asked the Assistant Postmaster-General how many telephones were put out of commission in the recent storms and floods; and how many of these have been repaired to the nearest available date.

Mr. Gammans: Rather more than 70,000 telephones were put out of order in the recent storms and floods, over 60,000 of them being in Wales and the South-West of England, and nearly 200 small exchanges were temporarily isolated. All recorded faults arising from storm damage have now been cleared. I should like to take this opportunity of thanking the engineering staff who have worked so hard to complete this great task.

Dr. King: Everyone in the House will wish to be associated with that tribute which the Minister has paid to the engineers. Since his answers to this and the last Question show that the Post Office engineers are giving him unstinted and loyal service, will he not now generously reconsider the claim which they are making for a revaluation of their highly-skilled engineering work in the Post Office?

Mr. Gammans: The hon. Member has asked an entirely different question. We have become accustomed to unstinted service from the Post Office engineers over many, many years.

Leyton

Mr. Sorensen: asked the Assistant Postmaster-General the number of unsatisfied applications for telephone installations in the Borough of Leyton; the average period for which applicants must wait before service is provided; how many share lines; the number of public kiosks available; and what proportion of

these are damaged or put out of action during the year.

Mr. Gammans: One thousand and nineteen applications are outstanding; 984 telephones were connected during the past 12 months. The waiting time varies from place to place in the borough depending on whether lines are available or not, and an average figure cannot be given. One thousand and fifty-six subscribers in the borough share lines. There are 86 kiosks in service; full statistics of damage are not readily available, but 83 instances of glass being broken have been reported since the beginning of the year.

Mr. Sorensen: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that in this district and in others a number of installations are put out of action obviously quite maliciously? Can he say whether the position is improving or deteriorating?

Mr. Gammans: I think it is getting a litle better, although I would want notice of that question to give full information. There axe a number of cases of malicious acts, but in most parts of the country they are not too serious.

Oral Answers to Questions — WIRELESS AND TELEVISION

Independent Television Authority (Frequencies)

Mr. Hobson: asked the Assistant Postmaster-General what frequencies have been allocated to the Independent Television Authority.

Mr. Gammans: I would refer the hon. Member to my reply to the right hon. Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Ness Edwards) on 15th December.

Mr. Hobson: Whilst thanking the hon. Gentleman for that reply, may I ask which mobile radio users have had to be transferred for these frequencies to become available?

Mr. Gammans: I cannot say without notice.

Radio Links (Licences)

Mr. Hobson: asked the Assistant Postmaster-General when and what changes have been made since 1951 in the Wireless Telegraphy Regulations to permit other bodies than the General Post Office to control and operate radio links.

Mr. Gammans: None, Sir.

Mr. Hobson: Can the hon. Gentleman give an assurance that there are no radio links being rented or operated by personnel other than of the Post Office?

Mr. Gammans: No, Sir. The Postmaster-General is authorised under the Act to issue licences. If the hon. Member would like me to let him have a list of the licences issued, I could probably do so.

Brighton Area (Reception)

Mr. H. Johnson: asked the Assistant Postmaster-General whether he is aware that the Truleigh Hill booster is giving very poor television reception in Brighton and district because the output has been so heavily reduced; and what action he intends to take to ensure that reception is again adequate.

Mr. Gammans: I cannot at present add much to what I said in the Adjournment debate on 16th November. North Hessary Tor has been only just opened. I understand from the British Broadcasting Corporation that the Corporation is conducting tests, but it is too early to say whether it will be possible to increase the power of Truleigh Hill without causing interference with North Hessary Tor.

Mr. Johnson: Is my hon. Friend aware that the best technical advice is that there never was the slightest need for this heavy cut in output, that it was done by the B.B.C. out of sheer spitefulness, that it was a breach of Clause 4 (1) of the B.B.C. licence? Will my hon. Friend consult the Law Officers of the Crown with a view to recommending revocation under Section 23 (2) of the B.B.C.'s Charter?

Mr. Gammons: I do not think my hon. Friend ought to say that it is due to the spitefulness of the B.B.C. After all, the B.B.C. is under the same obligations to serve the people who pay for licences as anyone else would be under those circumstances. What the B.B.C. proposes to do is to see to what extent it is possible to fix the power of Truleigh Hill without messing up an area in Dorset served by North Hessary Tor.

Mr. Johnson: My hon. Friend seems to have overlooked the fact that people in the Brighton area are existing licence fee-payers and are therefore entitled to a

service which they are not getting from the B.B.C.

Mr. Gammans: I think my hon. Friend had better suggest to his constituents that they should wait until the B.B.C. has completed all its experiments so as to get the very best service they can until such time as the Rowridge Station in the Isle of Wight—which is to serve them permanently—is working at full power.

Licences (Prosecutions)

Mr. Sorensen: asked the Assistant Postmaster-General his estimate of the number of owners of broadcasting and of television sets who fail to take out licences; how many are annually prosecuted; and what is the average number of applications for licences in sample areas consequent on the assumption of special investigation in such areas.

Mr. Gammans: No reliable estimate can be given of the number of people using sound receivers or television sets without a licence. Last year about 9,500 people were prosecuted. Investigations were made in many areas during September, October and November, and in this period the number of television licences for the whole country rose by 465,000, while the number of sound licences fell by 93,000. While these investigations have certainly contributed largely to the increase in the number of television licences, other factors have also had an effect, for example, the opening of new television stations and the lifting of hire-purchase restrictions in mid-July.

Mr. Sorensen: Can any deduction be drawn from the figures as to the proportion of those owning television or sound-receiving sets who do not have licences?

Mr. Gammons: No, Sir, it is very difficult to draw any reliable deduction from the figures. What we are doing is to increase the services we provide to try to discover and prosecute people who do not take out licences. I think that on the figures I have given the hon. Member and on the figures which, no doubt, he has seen in the Press, we have been increasingly successful in doing that.

Oral Answers to Questions — ROYAL AIR FORCE

Bristol Sycamore Helicopter, Kenya

Mr. Dodds: asked the Under-Secretary of State for Air to make a statement giving details of the Bristol Sycamore helicopter in Kenya.

The Under-Secretary of State for Air (Mr. George Ward): I should prefer not to make a statement until after the Christmas Recess.

Mr. Dodds: Would the hon. Gentleman give some reason for that? Is he not aware that the helicopter has been flying and that in the past there has been substantial criticism of the slowness of the Service authority in thinking of the difficult lives the men in Kenya have to lead and who might be helped very much by this form of aircraft?

Mr. Ward: I know the helicopter in Kenya has made a promising start, but I still think it would be premature to make a statement until we have had greater experience of operating at these heights. I hope to be in Kenya early in January, and I shall make a point of examining the whole of the helicopter question when I am there.

Hunter and Swift Aircraft

Mr. Cooper-Key: asked the Under-Secretary of State for Air whether he will make a statement on the supply of Hunter and Swift fighter aircraft to the Royal Air Force.

Mr. Langford-Holt: asked the Under-Secretary of State for Air if he is satisfied with the performance of the Swift swept-wing fighter now in squadron service with the Royal Air Force.

Mr. Ward: Although the initial delivery of Hunters was delayed, we now have substantial numbers of them. Three squadrons in Fighter Command have already received Hunters, and we shall issue the others to squadrons as fast as we can. A small number of the early marks of Swift have been delivered and used to equip one squadron, but acceptance of the later marks has been delayed by the need to solve aerodynamic problems. My noble Friend and I do not conceal our disappointment at the delays which have occurred.

Mr. Cooper-Key: Will my hon. Friend assure the House that the performance of these Hunters now in service is at least up to the standard of the Sabres and MiGs that are in operation with their respective air forces?

Mr. Ward: As often happens, it is necessary to make a number of small modifications before the aircraft goes into squadron service, and these modifications are now being made. When they are done, I am quite certain that I can give my hon. Friend that full assurance.

Mr. Beswick: Would not the hon. Gentleman agree that the delay has been absolutely grotesque? Is it not a fact that in the original trials of these aircraft the manufacturers' test pilot made certain observations which were not passed on by the manufacturers to the Royal Air Force? Will he look into that aspect of affairs?

Mr. Ward: We are dealing with two different types of aircraft here. I do not know whether the hon. Member is referring to the Swift or to the Hunter. As regards the Hunter, in relation to the production programme to which we were working in March, 1953, deliveries of Hunters, which did fall badly behind at one time, have now largely caught up. The Swift is another story altogether, and there again we are dealing with more than one version. Originally the Swift was developed as a private venture by the manufacturers from a research aircraft commissioned by the Ministry of Supply. This research aircraft—the 535—was built to test some of the problems involved in the operational requirement issued in 1948 for an aircraft to replace the day fighters then in service.
It was thought in 1950, when production orders were placed for the Swift, that, with the Hunter, it would meet the needs of the Royal Air Force. Since then, more than one version of the original design has been built. Aerodynamically difficult problems have been encountered, and it is not yet possible to say whether all these difficulties can be overcome in all the versions which are now under development.

Mr. Callaghan: The hon. Gentleman says that one squadron only has so far been equipped with the Swift. What was the expectation in the programme?

Mr. Ward: One squadron only has so far been equipped, and I make no secret of the fact that that is way below what we expected.

Mr. Callaghan: What was expected?

Mr. Ward: That I cannot tell the hon. Gentleman, but what we have is below what we expected. However, this is not a tragic result. It is not a scandal. As the hon. Gentleman is aware, we have had considerable development difficulties.

Mr. Langford-Holt: Is my hon. Friend aware that this is no new problem and that I urged the hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan) to do something about it, both in speeches on the Estimates and by Questions, some four years ago and that very little was done at that stage?

Mr. Speaker: We have spent a long time on this single Question. This seems to me to be much more suitable for a debate on the Estimates.

New Jet Fighters and Bombers

Mr. Beswick: asked the Under-Secretary of State for Air the total number of new British jet fighters and bombers, apart from the Canberra, which have been put into operational squadron service since October, 1951.

Mr. Ward: It would not be in the public interest to give this information.

Mr. Beswick: Is it not a fact that there is a very big discrepancy between the substantial numbers which the hon. Gentleman said a moment ago had been delivered to the R.A.F. and the number actually in the squadrons? Can he say why it is that they are not suitable to go into squadron service?

Mr. Ward: The Question deals with fighters and bombers apart from the Canberra. The hon. Gentleman knows very well that there are no jet bombers apart from the Canberra in service.

Mr. C. I. Orr-Ewing: Would my hon. Friend agree that the delay of six years from the moment the design study is made until an entirely new operational aircraft comes into use, is about the same in the United States as in this country, and that therefore it is not in any way exceptional? Would he also agree that we have in the Hunter an aircraft which will equal any operational fighter aircraft in the world?

Catering

Mr. A. Henderson: asked the Under-Secretary of State for Air whether consideration will be given to increasing airmen's daily ration allowance so that a wider variety of food can be purchased.

Mr. Ward: The amount was increased on 1st November, and I hope that this will have the desired effect.

Mr. Beswick: asked the Under-Secretary of State for Air if he will take steps to improve the quality of food provided in the Royal Air Force, and, in particular, reduce the frequency of meals consisting of offal.

Mr. Ward: I think that on the whole people in the Royal Air Force are given very good food, although we are, of course, always seeking ways and means of improving our standards. A check from 100 units shows that the amount of offal bought each week is rather less than will provide one complete meal a man, and this hardly seems excessive.

Mr. Beswick: asked the Under-Secretary of State for Air if he will provide more modern cooking equipment for Royal Air Force stations.

Mr. Ward: We have worked out a programme of re-equipment, and we are pressing ahead with this as fast as we can.

Mr. Beswick: Is it not a fact that although the food may be good in quality it is not always the most appetising when it is served? Is the hon. Gentleman aware that, especially at this time of year, we can all applaud the fact that an attempt is being made to improve the cooking facilities?

Mr. Ward: We have been making great efforts since the war through training courses. We have increased the basic cook's course from eight weeks to 14 weeks, and we have introduced a 12 weeks' advanced cooking course.

Oral Answers to Questions — WEATHER CONDITIONS (ATOMIC EXPLOSIONS)

Mr. Palmer: asked the Under-Secretary of State for Air if he will arrange for an inquiry into the possible effects of atomic explosions on weather conditions.

Mr. Ward: The World Meteorological Organisation is collecting all available information on this subject and plan to publish a report.

Mr. Palmer: Whilst welcoming that reply, may I ask if the hon. Gentleman realises that such an inquiry would have at least the negligible advantage of absolving the present Government from blame?

Oral Answers to Questions — ROADS

Unilateral Parking (Tottenham Court Road Area)

Mr. Langford-Holt: asked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation what recommendations for unilateral parking he has received from the Metropolitan Police for streets in the Tottenham Court Road area.

The Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation (Mr. John Boyd-Carpenter): None, Sir, apart from those for streets on which in accordance with my statement to the House of 17th November and with my approval, experimental restrictions have been imposed since Monday, 6th December.

Mr. Langford-Holt: Will the right hon. Gentleman take steps to try to obtain such recommendations? After all, it is the policeman on the beat who has the knowledge and experience in these matters, and his advice would be more useful than that of the heads of the Departments in this matter.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I shall certainly watch the matter, but I think that the experiments which only started on 6th December ought to be allowed to go on for a little while.

Mr. K. Robinson: Is the Minister aware that the traffic difficulties in this area are absolutely appalling and that unilateral parking is at least one way in which improvement can be achieved? Will he look at, or encourage the Chief Commissioner of Police to look at, conditions in Great Portland Street?

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I think that restrictions of this kind can help. I have introduced quite a lot of them, and I am watching them.

Winchester Diversion (Improvements)

Mr. Smithers: asked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation whether he will now proceed with construction of the new link road connecting the Newbury-Winchester Road with the Winchester by-pass and with the new road continuing the southern end of the by-pass with Bassett and Ower, with a view to diverting heavy traffic from the Midlands away from the city of Winchester and to facilitate the passage of summer traffic to the south coast.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: The first step must be to publish the necessary draft Orders under the Trunk Roads Act, 1946. This I hope to do shortly, but I cannot at present say when it will be possible to proceed with these schemes.

Mr. Smithers: Is my right hon. Friend aware that this first step will be very welcome, that Winchester depends for its livelihood very largely on retail trade, and that the present road is badly choked?

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: Yes, Sir.

Dual-Carriageways

Viscount Hinchingbrooke: asked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation whether he will, in constructing new dual-carriageway roads, better the standards in force before the war as to width, camber, gradient, and radius of curve.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: Recommended standards for width and radius of new roads are now higher than before the war; so are those for super-elevation and vertical visibility. Standards for camber and gradient remain at present the same.

Mr. Langford-Holt: Is the Minister aware that there is a tendency in these new trunk and ring roads to allocate far too high a percentage to pavements and grass verges which, in fact, is a waste of carriageway and also of agricultural land, both of which we need in this country?

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: It may well be so, but that supplementary, I think, relates to the previous Question.

Viscount Hinchingbrooke: asked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation whether he is aware of the waste of land


and money involved in the provision of cycle tracks as well as footpaths on each side of the pre-war dual-carriageway roads; and whether, in any new programme for the extension of such roads, he will, in appropriate areas, provide for a single track in each direction for both cyclists and pedestrians.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: For the sake of economy in both land and money, the overall widths of dual carriageway roads are kept to the minimum necessary to serve the needs of present and anticipated traffic. To combine cycle tracks and footpaths where these are necessary would not be in the interests of road safety.

Mr. Orr-Ewing: Will the Minister look at the height and steepness of the kerbstones on the centre part of arterial roads? Before the war they sloped and, therefore, they were much less dangerous in an emergency. Now they are vertical and much higher, and obviously they would turn over a car and might lead to much more serious accidents than did the previous design?

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I did indicate to the House a few weeks ago that I was looking into this question of the kerb on roads in rural areas, and I hope shortly to complete those investigations.

Improvements

Viscount Hinchingbrooke: asked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation whether he will specify the main stretches of road to be improved in the first year of the programme recently announced.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: As I have already indicated, I hope to be able to make an announcement about the expanded roads programme soon after the Christmas Recess.

Oral Answers to Questions — SHIPPING

Sea Rescue Facilities (Helicopters)

Mr. Dodds: asked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation at what points on Britain's coast helicopters are always available for saving life at sea; and what proposals he has to extend this development in air-sea rescue work.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: Royal Naval and Royal Air Force helicopters are stationed at Anthorn, Brawdy, St. Mawgan, Culdrose, Gosport, Ford, Thornaby, Lossiemouth and Eglinton. There are also helicopters at the United States Air Force base at Manston. As I indicated in reply to a Question by the hon. Member on 8th December, these helicopters are provided in the first place to meet Service requirements, and their use for rescue work is therefore subject both to Service arrangements and to the operational limitations of helicopters of the type now in service. As more helicopters become available, the Royal Air Force plan to station them at Chivenor, Thorney Island, Martlesham Heath, Horsham St. Faith, North Coates, Leuchars, and possibly one or two other places. This will be done as rapidly as possible.

Mr. Dodds: Does the right hon. Gentleman appreciate that it is very difficult to take in all the names he has mentioned? Does he appreciate the great importance of helicopter sea rescue as a complement to the lifeboats? Is he attempting through his own Ministry to encourage the putting into operation of more of these services? Will he see that the matter is well publicised as one of great importance?

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I think that the hon. Gentleman should be encouraged by the increased provision that is being made.

U.K. Shipowners (European Orders)

Mr. Page: asked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation what tonnage of shipbuilding has been ordered by United Kingdom shipowners from European shipyards during the past 12 months.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I regret that I have not the information for which my hon. Friend asks. For over three years United Kingdom shipowners have been free to place orders in European shipyards without informing Her Majesty's Government. I can, however, say that, in the past 12 months, of the total new tonnage added to the United Kingdom register about 41,000 gross tons or 4 per cent. was built in Europe.

Mr. Page: Is not my right hon. Friend aware of several substantial orders which have been placed in recent months by British shipowners with Continental yards because British shipbuilders were unable to quote fixed prices, and can my right hon. Friend do anything to assist the British shipbuilders in that respect?

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I am certain that it would not assist British shipbuilders to consider re-imposing restrictions of one kind or another. One has to bear in mind the large tonnage built in British yards through foreign orders.

Mr. Awbery: Can the right hon. Gentleman explain why British shipowners, who are clamouring for British trade, are sending their orders for new ships to the Continent?

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: The latest figure, which I gave in my original answer, was that only 4 per cent. of the ships added to the U.K. register were built in European yards. When account is taken of the large number of ships built in United Kingdom yards through foreign orders, that need not cause much concern.

Oral Answers to Questions — TRANSPORT

Road Haulage Assets (Disposal)

Mr. Ernest Davies: asked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation the number of transport units so far disposed of and the number of vehicles contained therein.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: Twelve thousand and fifty-four vehicles have been sold up to 21st December: 11,652 in 4,103 units, and 402 in three companies.

Mr. Davies: Does not this show that the average size of the units is from two to three vehicles? Does he appreciate that this continued fragmentation of the industry is giving very considerable concern both to industry, which is finding it increasingly difficult to secure the service which it requires, and also to those existing road hauliers who are finding that the small people who are coming in are flouting the law?

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I do not accept that any particular class of road user is flouting the law. No doubt the hon.

Member is pleased to see the considerable progress in sales which has taken place since he asked a Question on this subject on 6th December.

Mr. H. Morrison: Apart from the fundamental question of policy which divides the Government and the Opposition, is it not a case that these sales have now reached rather a dribble and that the Government and industry are likely to be in a situation in which they are getting the worst of both worlds? Had the right hon. Gentleman not better contemplate calling a halt by saying, "These go to private enterprise and those that are unsold can go to the British Transport Commission"? Would that not be a sensible and rational thing to do in the circumstances?

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I would not agree with the right hon. Gentleman when he describes as a dribble a sale of 2,047 lorries in five weeks.

Mr. Davies: Is it not a fact that these vehicles can only be sold if they are sold at a trickle, that is to say, purchased by those who buy one, two or three vehicles, and that it was never the intention of the Act that sales should take place in this way and the industry be atomised?

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I would ask the hon. Gentleman to await the termination of this matter, but it will be recalled that it was clearly stated from this Box that it was the intention of the Act to give the small man an opportunity to return to this industry.

Licensing Regulations (Enforcement)

Mr. Ernest Davies: asked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation if he will increase the number of officers employed by his Department to ensure enforcement of the licensing procedure laid down by the Road and Rail Traffic Act, 1933.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: As I have already announced, I have asked the Civil Service Commission to recruit some 170 additional driving and traffic examiners. This will increase the number of staff available for enforcement work.

Mr. Davies: Is the Minister aware that there has been a very great increase in the evasion of the law in regard to the


licensing procedure, and that the enforcement officers are finding it possible to deal only with a few of the alleged breaches of the law? For instance, is he aware that in the London Home Counties there are only nine enforcement officers, which is quite inadequate? Will he, therefore, consider increasing the number to the greatest possible extent?

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: As the hon. Gentleman will see from my original answer, some additional enforcement staff is being provided in this way. So far as one particular area is concerned, I prefer not to answer without notice.

Mr. Callaghan: Is it not a shocking commentary on the sales of lorries that there is a need for an increase in enforcement officers as soon as there is sale to private enterprise?

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I do not think the hon. Gentleman is entitled to draw that deduction, however agreeable politically it might be for him to do so.

Mr. Ernest Davies: asked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation the number of convictions for offences committed in regard to the licensing of goods vehicles under Part I of the Road and Rail Traffic Act, 1933; and what was the number of enforcement officers employed in his Department for the latest available period of 12 months, and for the comparable period in 1938.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: The number of convictions for these offences during the years ended 30th September, 1954 and 1938 was 8,324 and 16,675, respectively. On 30th September, 1954, 62 officers were employed mainly on this enforcement work, and during the early part of the year 36 examiners normally employed on driving tests were so employed for part of their time. The number of enforcement staff on 30th September, 1938; was 75.

Mr. Davies: If I heard the Minister correctly, is it not a fact that the number of convictions seems to have doubled during this period, and if it is not due to the sale of the vehicles, and this increasing competition which leads to these breaches of the law, what is responsible for this increase?

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I know it is difficult to follow figures when they are read

out, but when the hon. Gentleman looks at them he will find that the number of convictions in the 1954 period was approximately half those in 1938.

Mr. Davies: In view of the fact that it is well known that breaches of the law have very much increased, is not this evidence that there are insufficient enforcement officers at the present time?

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I am not prepared to accept a generalisation of that sort.

Oral Answers to Questions — FIGHTER AIRCRAFT (DELIVERIES)

Mr. de Freitas: asked the Prime Minister whether he will hold an inquiry into the relations between the Air Ministry and the Ministry of Supply and between the Ministry of Supply and the aircraft industry with a view to reducing the cost and increasing the speed of development and production of modern jet fighter aircraft.

The Prime Minister (Sir Winston Churchill): No, Sir. As I informed the hon. Member for Aston (Mr. Wyatt) on 16th December, Her Majesty's Government are well aware of the facts and are giving careful consideration to the lessons to be learnt from experience in the development and production of new fighter aircraft. This covers the relationships between the various Departments concerned.

Mr. de Freitas: Does that mean that there is an inquiry into the relations to which I refer in my Question?

The Prime Minister: No, Sir. I am not proposing to hold any special inquiry, but a continuous examination of the whole subject is proceeding.

Mr. Shinwell: In view of the rumours about a possible revival of the Ministry of Aircraft Production in order to deal with this subject, would the right hon. Gentleman, before taking any definite step, consider the possibility of streamlining the Ministry of Supply, hiving off some of its functions to the Board of Trade and other Government Departments, and making itself primarily and exclusively responsible for munitions production, including not only the Army and the Air Force as at present, but also the Admiralty?

The Prime Minister: All these matters will have to be considered if any changes such as those at which I hinted were actually brought into force.

Mr. Beswick: Is the Prime Minister aware that doubts about the aircraft industry are not confined to the production of fighter aircraft but extend to civil aircraft, too? Is there a possibility of improving the industry and improving the returns on the great sums of public money that have been invested in it, and will he look into that wider aspect?

The Prime Minister: Yes, Sir. I shall. I hope we shall have plenty of time to do so in the weeks approaching us which are usually the occasion when heavy work can be best accomplished.

Mr. Noel-Baker: Will the Prime Minister, when considering the aircraft industry, recall that it has always been closely organised, that many people have called it a ring, and will he look up what he said before the war about its efforts?

The Prime Minister: I am always glad to look to any part of HANSARD which enables me to say, "I told you so."

Mr. de Freitas: asked the Prime Minister whether statements will be made as soon as possible after the recess on the supply to the Royal Air Force of modern jet fighter aircraft.

The Prime Minister: As I informed the House in reply to a supplementary question on 16th December, I consider that this is a matter which should be presented to the House during the debates on the Estimates.

Mr. de Freitas: Since responsibility for the waste of millions of pounds of public money on aircraft production is that of the Ministry of Supply, will not the right hon. Gentleman see that the Minister of Supply makes a statement so that it can be considered and debated without relying merely on the debate on the Service Estimates when the guilty man is not present?

Mr. A. Henderson: Has the Prime Minister gone back on the statement he made at the end of a supplementary answer recently, when he said, in effect, that if it were decided through the usual channels that a full statement should be made earlier than the Estimates debates,

it would be considered? Will he agree to consider any such request if made through the usual channels?

The Prime Minister: Yes, Sir, I think that when the general question of business is gone into when we meet together again we must see what is most convenient.

N.A.T.O. (MINISTERIAL MEETING)

The Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (Sir Anthony Eden): With your permission, Mr. Speaker, and that of the House, I should like to make a statement.
As the House is aware, a ministerial meeting of the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation is held at the end of each year in Paris at which we take stock of the progress of N.A.T.O. in both the civil and military fields. It is the final stage in our examination of the collective defence effort and of the contribution which each member nation makes.
This year there has been a steady increase in the efficiency of N.A.T.O. forces. But there is yet much to do before we can be satisfied with the deterrent effect of the Alliance. Its full power has not yet been realised.
In order to attain this position of defensive and deterrent strength we look forward, in the corning years, to an important contribution from the German Federal Republic. Even more significant, however, will be the effect of the new weapons with which the N.A.T.O. forces are now beginning to be equipped. As a result of this, the pattern of Western military strength in the next few years can achieve—and here I quote the words used by Mr. Foster Dulles in Washington yesterday:
…a form of security which seeks the preservation of peace as its first objective, but in the event of war would not put the Continent in the position of 'having to be liberated'.
I fully endorse those words.
In this connection, I know that public interest has been aroused by the knowledge that the North Atlantic Council has had before it a report by the Military Committee "on the pattern of N.A.T.O. military strength over the next few years." Before the ministerial meeting all sorts of rumours were circulating of difficulties


and disagreements on this question, between Governments or between the civil and military authorities of N.A.T.O. None of these rumours was well founded.
As stated in the communiqué, the North Atlantic Council approved the Military Committee's report as a basis for defence planning and preparations by the N.A.T.O. military authorities. It noted, however, that this approval did not involve the delegation of the responsibility of Governments to make decisions for putting plans into action in the event of hostilities. Responsibility in this matter rests, therefore, with Governments. It will, for obvious reasons, not be possible to publish the detailed arrangements finally arrived at.
I should also report that the Ministers of the 14 nations examined, once again, the underlying purposes as well as recent manifestations of Soviet policy. They could find no reason to consider that the Soviet threat to the free world had diminished. The massive military power of the Soviet Union is still growing rapidly. Soviet policy is still aimed at confusing, dividing and weakening the West.
Therefore, there was absolute and unanimous agreement among my colleagues that world peace, and the security and freedom of their countries, could not be safeguarded without a resolute and sustained effort to uphold the unity in strength of the North Atlantic Alliance. This effort the N.A.T.O. countries are firmly resolved to make.

Mr. Shinwell: Will the right hon. Gentleman not agree that the statement he has read out, apart from a reaffirmation of unity among the N.A.T.O. countries, together with their intentions, contains nothing new, with the exception of a reference to the pattern of military strength in the next few years, which seems to embody the implication of the use of nuclear weapons in certain eventualities?
On that point, may I ask the right hon. Gentleman this question: can we have a definite assurance that the policy associated with the use of nuclear weapons will be retained by Governments; that, in fact, there will be exclusive ministerial responsibility in that respect, and furthermore, as regards the timing of the using

of such weapons, apart from the decision about policy, which is left to the Governments concerned, that this will also be the subject of consideration by Governments?

Sir A. Eden: Yes, Sir. The right hon. Gentleman is quite right when he says that the general organisation and examination of N.A.T.O. this year, apart from the matter he has just raised, did not reveal anything very new. However, I do not think that ought to discourage us since, as I think he would agree, the N.A.T.O. annual review is a matter so well organised—as M. Spaak so well put it—by the existing work that is being done there that the meetings do not take the time they do when there is disagreement. As the right hon. Gentleman knows very well, when there is disagreement in diplomacy it takes a long time to resolve it; when there is agreement, it goes quite quickly.
On the specific question, I cannot do better than read the relevant paragraph of the communiqué about the question of new weapons, which is important and completely meets the preoccupation of the right hon. Gentleman. It runs as follows:
The Council considered a report by the Military Committee on the most effective pattern of N.A.T.O. military defensive strength over the next few years, taking into account modern developments in weapons and techniques. It approved this report as a basis for defence planning and preparations by the N.A.T.O. military authorities, noting that this approval did not involve the delegation of the responsibility of Governments to make decisions for putting plans into action in the event of hostilities.
Those decisions cover plans for hostilities with whatever weapons there may be.

Mr. Shinwell: I will content myself for the moment with accepting the statement made by the right hon. Gentleman, but may I ask him to understand that the implications of what he has just said, together with the general position of N.A.T.O. in the defensive field, must be a matter for future consideration and debate in this House, because there are some references in the statement he has just made about the strength of N.A.T.O. to which, I am afraid, exception may require to be taken?

Mr. A. Henderson: May I ask the Foreign Secretary whether, in due course, some information will be given which will throw light on the new pattern of military


defence in the light of modern development? Without giving away anything in the nature of security, shall we be given some more information on that?

Sir A. Eden: Yes, I will consider that with my right hon. Friend the Minister of Defence.

Mr. C. I. Orr-Ewing: Can my right hon. Friend say whether any attention was given at the N.A.T.O. meeting to psychological warfare, and would he say whether it would not be a good idea in the coming year to co-ordinate a plan for psychological warfare by the N.A.T.O. Powers in view of the increasing importance of that side?

Sir A. Eden: There was no specific limited discussion of that topic, although there was a discussion of the Soviet plans. In relation to that, certain suggestions were made. It would not be proper for me to say more than that without notice, so perhaps my hon. Friend will put down a Question.

Mr. Wigg: Does not the right hon. Gentleman think it is absolute humbug to come to the House and pretend that we have a policy based on strength when we have practically no Civil Defence, no guided missiles, and what modern aircraft we have are armed with out-of-date weapons?

Sir A. Eden: I was not giving an account of Britain's military strength; I was giving an account of the arrangements for N.A.T.O. collectively, where there are 14 Powers, and I think the account I have given of their military strength is a perfectly correct one—at any rate, it was endorsed by the 14 Ministers there.

Mr. Alport: Can my right hon. Friend give any indication of the extent of the increase of Russian forces during the past 12 months?

Sir A. Eden: I will endeavour to make a statement, but I should require notice of the question.

Mr. de Freitas: Did the 14 countries endorse Lord Montgomery's statement of last July that N.A.T.O. countries grossly neglected Civil Defence?

Sir A. Eden: Lord Montgomery's statement, as such, was not discussed.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: Why not?

Mr. de Freitas: Is it not outrageous that Lord Montgomery's statement was not discussed?

Mr. Beswick: With reference to the question about psychological warfare, will the Foreign Secretary agree that the best form of psychological warfare would be the economic and social development of the countries for which we have responsibility? When will N.A.T.O. turn to that side of its duties?

Sir A. Eden: I should have thought that we and the other N.A.T.O. countries had a good record in that respect, and I should have thought that the hon. Gentleman would have recognised that fact. It is certainly very much better than the record of Soviet Russia in developing the countries for which she is responsible.

Mr. S. Silverman: Does not the Foregin Secretary think that a little psychological peace-making might be a useful accompaniment to the psychological warfare? While the right hon. Gentleman is considering that, might I ask him two questions arising out of his original statement?
First, are we to understand from what he said about the use of new weapons that it is clearly understood that a decision as to the use of those weapons is a political decision to be made by Governments and not a military decision to be made by officers in the field? If there should be a difference between the policy and the timing, on the line of my right hon. Friend's suggestion, can he say whether the Governments have yet agreed upon the policy as distinct from the timing?
Secondly, the right hon. Gentleman said that the Council had reviewed the contribution of the member nations to the collective forces. Can he say whether there was any discussion about the equality of such contributions and whether any steps are being taken to make, for instance, the length of National Service equal in all the member States?

Sir A. Eden: In reply to the first of the hon. Gentleman's two supplementary questions following his first point, I thought I had made the position absolutely clear in the statement which I read out. If there is the slightest doubt about it, perhaps the hon. Member will be good enough to study the N.A.T.O. communiqué. I do not think it could be


clearer that the responsibility for decisions lies with Governments. It must do. We are all agreed about that.
With regard to his supplementary question about the length of National Service, the burdens that countries bear are discussed at great length in the various committees before they go to the N.A.T.O. meeting. It is true that countries have different obligations outside N.A.T.O., and sometimes their terms of service are what they are because of reasons outside the N.A.T.O. obligations.
Finally, the hon. Gentleman asked whether we were doing some work for peace. We believe that in the effort which N.A.T.O. has made compared with three years ago there is an element of unity in the West which is a real foundation on which to negotiate with the East if the East wishes to negotiate with us.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: Will the Foreign Secretary tell us why he did not raise the question of the defence of the civil population at the N.A.T.O. conference? Is he aware that in the "Manchester Guardian" yesterday the special correspondent of that newspaper who follows these matters said that this country could now be destroyed in 30 hours? Is he not aware that the Deputy Supreme Commander of N.A.T.O. has said that Civil Defence is grossly neglected? Does he agree with that? What does he intend to do to reassure the civil population, when we are spending an enormous amount of money on obsolete armaments but practically nothing on the defence of our civil population?

Sir A. Eden: That is a matter which can certainly be debated, but there are many people who think that the best way to maintain peace in present conditions is to provide some deterrent strength. I know that that is not the hon. Gentleman's view, but I can only tell him that if he had had his way and N.A.T.O. had never been built up at all—I know that that is what he wanted—the freedom of speech which we are all so glad that he enjoys would not have been very widely shared in Western Europe.

Mr. Hughes: But civilisation would not have been endangered.

Mr. Rankin: If Ministerial responsibility for the use of nuclear weapons has been accepted, can the Foreign Secretary tell us how it will be exercised? Is another step in the structure of N.A.T.O. on the political side visualised, or has such a decision to be unanimous or merely a majority decision?

Sir A. Eden: The hon. Gentleman will find that point covered in the answer which I have already given. I cannot add to what I have stated in my answer.

Mr. J. T. Price: Will the Foreign Secretary, in all these diplomatic discussions, do everything he can to discourage the use of the term "warfare," psychological or otherwise, since we are all concerned with the preservation of peace and the use of the term may in itself be the worst form of psychological warfare?

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Buchan-Hepburn.]

COLONIAL TERRITORIES

12.16 p.m.

Mr. A. Fenner Brockway: It is appropriate that we should begin our debates on the Christmas Adjournment by discussing the Colonies, and particularly the situation in Kenya.
It is our duty to remember that, while the House has responsibility for the welfare of 50 million people in the United Kingdom, it also has responsibility for 77 million people in British Colonial Territories. In Britain, we are aiming at a good life for our people, good social standards, good educational opportunities and health. Those matters are also of very keen importance in the Colonial Territories, in some of which there are places in the schools for less than 50 per cent. of the children, and only one doctor for 50,000 people, and where millions of people have a standard of life which is little above animal existence.
In the case of the Colonies there are wider issues, also. We have just been listening to a statement about preparations should war come. That is the biggest issue before the generation of the last half of this century, because if war comes with nuclear weapons it will be human suicide on a broad scale.
The second great question-mark over the second half of this century is racial relations. The white race, to which we belong, is only one third of the world's population. The races of Asia and Africa are moving forward towards an equality. If there is to be harmony in the world, we must begin by having good race relations. It is particularly the responsibility of this country to begin by establishing good race relations in our own Colonial Territories.
When one looks at this problem one can see that we are on a razor edge between the tendencies which are making for co-operation between peoples and the tendencies which are making for antagonism. If we look at our own Colonial Territories, we see that the tendencies making for co-operation are now strongest in West Africa, in the West Indies and in Tanganyika.
In some territories the position is uncertain; the tendencies for co-operation and for antagonism are equally balanced.

I put Malaya and Uganda in that category. Whether they advance towards co-operation, or deteriorate to an antagonism, will largely depend upon the policies which are immediately to be pursued. But I fear that in many of the Colonies the tendencies which are making for antagonism are greater than the tendencies which are making for co-operation. That is true of Kenya, Central Africa, Bechuanaland, British Guiana and of Cyprus.
I want to deal with three areas where recently there has been violence. One is Cyprus where we have had a warning during this week and the others are Malaya and Kenya, where violence has been continuing over a period of years.
It has frequently been said in this House that all of us have one objective and that is that these territories shall move towards self-government and after self-government shall have the right of self-determination. In the case of Cyprus that view has been repudiated by Her Majesty's Government. Her Majesty's Government have declared that considerations of strategic importance come before the right of the people to decide their own fate. I hope that every democratic influence in this country will protest against this cynical repudiation of a right which has been guaranteed by our Governments ever since the time of the Atlantic Charter.
Secondly, the strategic argument does not bear a moment's examination. The experience of British troops in the Suez Canal Zone shows that it is impossible to maintain a base within an unfriendly population. The population in Cyprus is now being made unfriendly towards us. What happened last week is a warning. We have an assurance from Greece that, if the people of Cyprus decide that they desire to unite with Greece, British bases would be permitted in Cyprus. The troops would then be surrounded by a friendly population. I submit to the Colonial Secretary that that ground for the refusal of an elementary democratic right to the Cypriotic people cannot stand.
Thirdly, there is the issue of the Turkish minority. I believe that we have a right to see that the claims of the Turkish minority are met, but, once again, the Government of Greece and the leaders


of the Cypriots have assured us that the rights of that Turkish minority would be recognised in the most generous manner.
Lastly, I want to put to the right hon. Gentleman this consideration. Many of the British soldiers who are in Cyprus—I expect many of those who were called upon to suppress the violence last week—are National Service men. They represent our broad community. Many of them are from families which are deeply critical of the policy which Her Majesty's Government are pursuing in Cyprus.
I know from my own correspondence how many British soldiers hate this kind of job in the British Colonies. I suggest to the right hon. Gentleman that, when he applies conscription to boys from all kinds of communities in this country, he should be very careful indeed that the policy which they are asked to implement should be one which has the general support of the nation and not the criticism of a large part of the nation, as has his policy in Cyprus today.
I want to spend the major part of my time in considering the two territories of Malaya and Kenya, particularly Kenya, where there have been hostilities over a period of years. In Malaya, we are now in the seventh year of the jungle war. There are in that Colony two problems; one is military and one is political, and I want to put considerations about both.
During this coming year—I am not sure whether it will be in April, or in August; perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will be axle to tell us—a great experiment is to be made in Malaya. For the first time there will be a Parliament with a democratically elected majority, and an arrangement that, with the nominated members, the majority will have 60 per cent. of the power in that Parliament. Whether this new Government fail or succeed is not only of the greatest importance to Malaya itself, but of the greatest importance to the whole critical area of South-East Asia.
Today, that is perhaps the key area where there is a conflict between democratic and totalitarian ideas. If the new Government in Malaya fail, the whole conception of democracy will have a severe setback. How can that Government possibly succeed in a policy of education, of social reform and of economic advance if they must continue to bear the

heavy expenditure which is now directed towards the jungle war?
I believe that I am correct when I say that 50 per cent. of that expenditure has to be borne by the Malayan Administration. I want to put to the right hon. Gentleman that, if that new Government are to have an opportunity for success, we must make some arrangements by which there can be reconsideration of this present financial expenditure.

ROYAL ASSENT

Message to attend the Lords Commissioners;

The House went; and having returned—

Mr. SPEAKER reported the Royal Assent to:

1. National Insurance Act, 1954.
2. Wireless Telegraphy (Validation of Charges) Act, 1954.
3. Dunoon Burgh (Pavilion Expenditure) Order Confirmation Act, 1954.

Question again proposed, That this House do now adjourn.

COLONIAL TERRITORIES

12.41 p.m.

Mr. Brockway: I was saying that there were two problems in Malaya, one political and the other military. I urge the right hon. Gentleman to take steps by which the new Government, which is to come into operation in Malaya this year, may have an opportunity, and may not be so heavily committed by expenditure on the jungle war, that it will not have money available for educational, social and economic reforms.
On the military aspect, I would again appeal to the right hon. Gentleman for an effort to end the fighting. I find it difficult to believe that some contact with the leaders of the insurgents could not be made. I believe that if proposals were made for the laying down of arms without the threat of the death penalty, and within a reasonable period a liberation of those in detention who were not guilty of crimes of a civilian character; if citizenship were offered, not before the coming general election, but in a postponed period, say of one year, it would be possible to bring an end to the fighting in Malaya.
I do not want to be dogmatic on these points. I make the suggestion to the right hon. Gentleman which I put in a Question this week, that it is time, in the seventh year of these hostilities, that we should send to Malaya an all-party delegation to examine both the political and the military situation and to make recommendations to this House. The all-party delegation to Kenya did great service, and I believe that a similar delegation to Malaya could, in this situation, contribute an even greater service.
But it is to Kenya especially that I wish to direct the attention of the Minister. There hostilities are in their third year. I wish to take this opportunity to renew my appeal to the right hon. Gentleman to take advantage of the situation, which occurred during the negotiations of last April, to make a new effort to end the fighting. On that occasion it was proved that 1,000 adherents of Mau Mau were ready to lay down their arms. They had gathered together in a certain place. Fighting took place nearby. They thought they had been tricked, so they dispersed.
When one knows that so large a part of the Mau Mau adherents are prepared to lay down their arms, I say that it would be criminal if new efforts were not made to bring an end to the struggle. It is estimated that the total Mau Mau forces are only 7,000. If 1,000 laid down their arms, that action would be followed by others, and an end to the fighting in Kenya could be brought about.
The difficulty is to restore the confidence of Mau Mau, as they thought they had been tricked on the last occasion. I suggest to the right hon. Gentleman that there are methods by which that could be achieved. A European and an African could be found who had the trust of the African population. They could begin negotiations; and if such negotiations once more added the end of the death penalty, as was included in the terms of last April, I believe that we should be near the end of the fighting in Kenya.
The second thing upon which I wish to concentrate is the question of the death penalties in Kenya. I asked the right hon. Gentleman to give details of the death penalties imposed upon Africans since the beginning of the emergency, month by month. His answer appears in the OFFICIAL REPORT of last Thursday, in column 192. I say that no

one can look at those figures without being shocked. The average number of Africans hanged in Kenya each month during the last four months is over 50, but of those hangings less than one-quarter were for the crime of killing anyone else.
In August-September the total number hanged was 73. The number charged with murder was 2. In September-October, the total number of executions was 52 and the number charged with murder, 7. In October, the number hanged was 35, and the number charged with murder 3. In November, the number hanged was 56, and the number charged with murder 10.
One is not surprised that there is uneasiness in wide circles in this country over this fact, expressed not only in "The Times" and by Christian missionaries who have been in Kenya. How can we retain our moral right to denounce the abominable atrocities and excesses of Mau Mau if we ourselves are pursuing this policy of 50 hangings a month, and less than one-quarter of those hangings follow a charge of murder?
The other charges are unlawful possession of arms and ammunition; consorting with terrorists; administering unlawful oaths and furthering terrorism. The right hon. Gentleman knows of the animosities there are now in Kenya among the Kikuyu, and how easily possible it is—indeed, as recent trials have revealed—with members of the Home Guard having an animosity to other Kikuyu, and being in possession of ammunition, for ammunition to be planted upon someone against whom there existed antagonism.
I have earlier in this House raised the case of an African who was a member of a Quaker mission. He was sentenced to death. It was only because he had friends who were in a position to exert pressure and to bring evidence on his behalf that that death sentence was repealed. Two bullets had been found in a shirt in his hut and he was sentenced to death. How easy it would have been for any opponent of his to have placed those two bullets there. This man had friends and he has been reprieved. But how many hundreds of Africans—or how many tens of Africans, I do not want to exaggerate—who have been hanged had no friends who could take up their


case? We must all have an uneasy feeling that an injustice has been done.

The Secretary of State for the Colonies (Mr. Alan Lennox-Boyd): I hope that the hon. Member will allow me to say that I should deplore it—as I know he would—if the view were taken that only those who commanded influence had justice done to them. The Governor and the other responsible persons review with equal care and agonising appraisal all the cases that come before them, whoever the prisoners concerned may or may not know.

Mr. Brockway: I did not mean to suggest that improper influence had been used, but in the case to which I have referred the prisoner was a member of a Quaker mission. In Kenya and in this country there are Quakers who are friendly to him. Attention could be brought to his case, and his friends had the ability to state the evidence.
But think of a man with no friends; a man without the same ability to put his case, and who cannot call upon others effectively to do so. Whilst I do not for a moment suggest that it was because of the influential character of the representations made on the prisoner's behalf that a favourable decision was reached in his case, I do say that other prisoners who have no friends are not in as advantageous a position.
Because of the limited time, I conclude. We are now in the midst of the greatest progressive social revolution of this century—the arising of the peoples of Asia and of Africa to a position of equality. I hope that Britain will be identified with that progressive revolution. If so, we must change the psychology of African populations over a large part of the Continent. We did it in India at the end of the war and we can do it now, in Africa, if only our policies in the Colonies are sufficiently bold and imaginative.

12.52 p.m.

Mr. Walter Elliot: I am sure that the House is indebted to the hon. Member for Eton and Slough (Mr. Fenner Brockway) for affording us this opportunity for a further discussion of our colonial affairs, even though it be a short one. I shall do my best to be extremely brief, because there are many other hon. Members who

wish to speak. I gladly recognise what a severe curb the hon. Member for Eton and Slough must have placed upon himself, especially when his speech was interrupted by the arrival of the Royal Commission. No doubt there were very many things he wished to say which he had to put aside.
The hon. Member touched upon the affairs of three of our territories overseas—Cyprus, Malaya and Kenya. If he will excuse me, I shall follow him only upon the subject of Kenya, about which I and others who went out there a little under a year ago had certain opportunities to acquire information. The hon. Member was kind enough to refer in approving terms to the work of the delegation. I can only say that it was an all-party delegation and that it reached unanimous findings, which is a rare enough occurrence in these days, especially upon a matter so controversial.
It is now just a year since we were preparing to set out, however, and I do not think that anyone would deny that a great improvement in the situation has since taken place. I refer not only to the military situation. I admit that there are still very great difficulties, and I agree with the hon. Member that it was a tragedy almost beyond words that the arrangements for the surrender of the Mau Mau forces were cut across by an untimely outbreak of hostilities somewhere upon the fringe of the area, which led to the collapse of what then seemed to be a very hopeful initiative.
The hon. Member made special reference to the administration of the law in Kenya, and to a feature of it which naturally distresses us all, namely, the number of trials and executions that take place. It seems to me, however, that the emergency, in a way, has led to one of the greatest colonial developments of the past year—the enormously important initiative which has been taken in Kenya, namely, the setting up of a multi-racial administration. In Kenya—almost uniquely upon that side of Africa—a situation has now developed where Africans as well as Europeans are Ministers; where other Ministers are of Indian origin, and some under-Ministers of Arab origin.
We have here the seed from which I hope will grow a whole new series of administrations upon the eastern side of


Africa. I have some acquaintance with the western side, but the position there is quite different. The minorities are tiny in number, and the association of the Africans with the Europeans—as the Africans would be the first to admit—is of very much longer duration, and has carried the Africans very much further, than is the case in the great eastern territories. But here, in the past year, this great thing has been done, and the first thing that we must do is to foster and encourage it in every way.
Given the responsibilities which this new Administration is taking up, it must be regarded with sympathy and understanding. Between this House and the Legislature in Nairobi there is a sharing of responsibility; and this moment is the most difficult of all, because, while we still feel our responsibilities, the Administration there is, naturally, jealous of the new rights which it is beginning to exercise.
Only this summer all the Parliaments of the Commonwealth assembled in Nairobi. A delegation from this House visited that city and was received with the utmost hospitality, as are all who visit Kenya. But, while every word which is spoken in this debate will be reported in the newspapers of East Africa, I fear that we do not get anything like the same meticulous reports of the proceedings of the Legislature of Kenya, in Nairobi. I suggest that the time has now come for us to invite a reciprocal visit from the Kenya Legislature. I suggest that it should consist of an adequate number of representatives—certainly, not fewer than six. I think that the Kenya Legislature can be trusted to ensure that its multiracial character will be reflected in the delegation which comes here.

Mr. James Griffiths: I intervene only to say that I am glad that that point has been made. I express the hope that the right hon. Gentleman's suggestion will be implemented and that we shall have a visit from an all-community delegation from Kenya in the very near future.

Mr. Elliot: I am glad that my suggestion has been echoed from the other side of the House by the right hon. Member for Llanelly (Mr. J. Griffiths), with his great knowledge and authority. I trust that the all-party character of the proposal will be noted. I am sure that

we can safely leave it to the Kenya Legislature to see that the representation of its delegation is adequate.
While it is very important that we should understand Kenya's problems, it is also important that Kenya should understand ours, and a visit to this country might be of great use in that it would enable the Legislature to realise the difference between the local view of its affairs and the view from this country. Kenya is, inevitably, pre-occupied with the strain under which its people are living. All of us who journeyed in that country must realise how pre-occupied anyone living under those conditions must be.
One reads of the most distressing things—a little child snatched from its playground and found dead; a lonely farm shot up or burned. These are most terrifying things; in fact. I think it is very creditable that equable temper has, on the whole, been preserved under these great strains. I know that when we were there one could go to a garden party, with lawns surrounded by rose bushes, like a vicarage here at home, and see an old lady coming round the corner, and at her waist, where normally one would expect to see her knitting, one saw a revolver. In these circumstances, it is difficult for people to keep their eyes focused on the long-distance objective, and for that reason I think it would be a great advantage to them, as well as to us, for a few of them to visit this country at an early date.
A further point is the development of these territories, and the active continuation of the thrust of modern agriculture and modern industrialism which is very necessary. In Kenya and other parts of the world, I have been very struck by the enormous appeal that the industrial Revolution makes to primitive people. We, who have been closely associated with it for so long, are a little inclined to look nostalgically at pastoral people living in agricultural or shepherd surroundings. But that is not the way in which it is looked at there.
To have power in one's hands, the control of the machine, the whole thrust which we felt in this country over 100 years ago, and which was felt in America 50 or 60 years ago—we see that reflected in the mines and factories there. We must see that the Industrial Revolution


is brought to them under perhaps easier conditions than when it arrived in this country. But for that, they must have their own leaders, of their own people, to explain these things to them.
I would suggest that as the next step, education—education of the women as well as the men—is of primary importance there. I think we shall find that will be more easy along the line of higher education than along the line of primary education. Education in Europe did not begin with universal primary education in all the schools. When Abelard was lecturing in Paris, his audiences were not based on a widespread system of education among the peasantry of France. Education grows from above to below, as well as from below to above. I am no advocate of the belief that we cannot have higher education until we have universal primary education on which to base it. Therefore, I suggest that this year, or, rather, next year, we might embark upon a proposal which I venture to put forward for the consideration of the Secretary of State.
I suggest that we should institute a group of scholarships, to be held by scholars of each of the communities, that is to say, European, African, Indian and Arab—possibly a small number at the beginning, perhaps 12 in a year. These should be known as Queen's Scholars. I think that it would not be unfitting that they should have that high title in view, among other things, of the very close connection of Her Majesty with Kenya, because it was actually there that she succeeded to the Crown of this country, and of this Empire.
They should, in the first place, I think, if we are to do this quickly, be brought over to this country and educated together as a group in one of our higher educational institutions—one of the universities or technical colleges, according to the scheme worked out by the two Governments concerned. Then we should, as early as possible, try to have this expanded and extended in Africa itself, in the first place at Makerere, or, as soon as possible, in what I hope to see established in the next few years, a multi-racial university in Nairobi itself, where, I think, they would get the coeducation which we realise to be necessary if the races are to understand each other.
But we must keep the swing on the job. I read with distress of the resignation of Colonel Young. I am not at all sure, incidentally, looking at this at first sight, that I share the opinions which Colonel Young holds, as against the opinions of the Government. I think there is a great difference between an African, newly-recruited into the constabulary and someone in this country recruited into our constabulary, with all the centuries of our civil experience behind him. I think it would be very dangerous to put a constable in the British position in a constabulary which is drawn from such raw material—and the executive word is "raw."
We were all impressed by the visit of Mr. Michael Blundell. We are zealous to see the liberal ideas, which he expressed, proper and brought forward. We want to say here that we look with sympathy across the ocean. Especially we want, as I have said, to keep the swing on the job.
I suggest, then, that, in the first place, we should forthwith see about inviting a delegation of their Parliamentary Legislature over here, thereby get the two legislatures in touch. Next year, if possible, we should see whether we can get this annual increment of scholars, which I would put at not less than a dozen, including women as well as men, and which should certainly be a multiracial group, financed from over here.
I think that should be our contribution because, among other things, it would give us a much greater say in the courses and curricula and the progress of the student than we would have if we merely recommended Kenya to add to its very considerable expenditure. I think that as a gift in the new year we should concede a dozen scholarships, working up to 20, and as soon as possible to a still higher number annually, for a course of higher education in this country, with the object eventually of transferring the education of these groups to an African institution.
There are many more things which I would like to say, but I have chosen from them two suggestions which, I hope, may add to the usefulness of our debate this morning.

Mr. A. G. Bottomley: In substantially supporting all


that has been said by the right hon. Gentleman, would he not agree that the troubles in Kenya are easier only because over 50,000 Africans are detained in prisons? Would he not also agree that the bitterness of those detained and the repercussions in their families are creating difficulties for the future? The Government should show more courage in trying to provide facilities for more effective African leadership.

Mr. Elliot: It may be that that is so. The essence of this debate is for as many hon. Members as possible to express their point of view, and I have limited myself to the two small but important points which I have put before the House.

1.9 p.m.

Mrs. Eirene White: I will not touch on many points which I should like to deal with because I know that there are others who wish to speak, and if my remarks are in many respects critical that is only because of shortness of time. I feel that I cannot spend much time on emphasising some of the progress which has undoubtedly been made in Kenya in the period since the emergency began.
The tragedy is that so much social progress is being fostered in that country that, if it were not for all the background which saddens us so much, one could have felt that this was a period of relative prosperity for all the communities there. In spite of the progress made, there are some very disquieting matters to which we wish to draw the attention of the right hon. Gentleman.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Rochester and Chatham (Mr. Bottomley) has already referred to the large number of persons who are still in the detention camps. We fully appreciate the difficulties of dealing with these people, owing to the very large numbers involved, and I understand that considerable progress has been made in screening and in bringing people into their different categories. Until that has been done, it is impossible to have any rational treatment of the people concerned. I think the right hon. Gentleman might tell us how far that process of dividing people into different categories for further treatment and rehabilitation has gone.
I know, from the answers to Questions given in the House, that the actual

physical problem of moving from the camps those who ought to be moved to a further stage in rehabilitation has been impeded because of typhoid in certain camps. Is it true that the Mau Mau organisation within the camps, which, we are told, is a fairly strong organisation in all of them, has quite deliberately taken steps to spread typhoid, which is not an impossible thing to do? If it is true, I think the country should know that that has been part of the Mau Mau work in these camps.
One of the great dangers of keeping people any longer than is absolutely necessary unsegregated in these camps is that it gives the Mau Mau organisation one further opportunity of putting pressure upon other Kikuyu who may quite possibly be innocent, detained in error, but who come under the most direct influence of the Mau Mau leaders in the camps. I think we are entitled to know something more about that.
I want to ask the Secretary of State more particularly about the younger people who, I believe, are in detention. I understand that the Mau Mau have what we may call their own call-up system, and I believe that an effort is being made—I should like the right hon. Gentleman's comments on the point—to deal with the younger men in some sort of youth camps, and to give them special training and education, which is of the utmost importance. Could the right hon. Gentleman therefore tell us whether there has been any attempt to segregate young people, who are possibly still in their 'teens, from the older ones, and give them a special chance to become more useful citizens?
Then there is the extremely disturbing series of reports, incidents, hints, and so on, of which the resignation of Colonel Young is perhaps the most significant incident, though there have been a good many others, which, I must say, leave us in this country rather bewildered as to what is really happening in regard to the police and the Kikuyu Home Guard, and the relationship of both to the Administration. The resignation of Colonel Young is a very recent matter, and it has been a very great disappointment to people who hoped that he would be able to complete his work there. I put down an Oral Question to the right hon. Gentleman which was not reached today, but


perhaps this debate will give him an opportunity of giving me a fuller answer than he might be able to do in reply to a Written Question.
I have also obtained the sessional paper issued by the Kenya Government last week, but it is not very much more informative than the newspaper reports. It does make it clear, however, that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Kelvingrove (Mr. Elliot), who preceded me, was not correct in attributing to Colonel Young the suggestion that all Africans in the police force should be endowed with the rights of constables as understood in this country. On the contrary, according to the sessional paper, Colonel Young suggested that such powers should be given only to police officers of the rank of inspector and above, which, after all is a very important proviso.
I do not think that anyone in this House would suggest that independent powers should be given to any African recruit to the police force in present circumstances in Kenya, but that is not, apparently, the point at issue. It was suggested that it was only the senior police officers who should be given some independence of the Administration, and this seems to me to be an exceedingly important matter on which I hope the right hon. Gentleman will give us a great deal more information.
We saw a report in "The Times" yesterday from its correspondent in Nairobi, from which it appears that one of the difficulties has been that the police have been told by the Administration that, for reasons of expediency, certain arrests, for example, should not take place. That is something on which we are entitled to know a good deal more. If a police officer believes that he has evidence to make a charge against some person regarding a crime, possibly of murder, and he is told by the Administration that he must not make that charge, because it would upset people or be very awkward, the independence of the police is challenged. One can envisage circumstances in which it might be very tempting to say such things, but if we were to allow considerations of expediency to weigh, it would be very difficult to see where these considerations are ever to stop.
Again, "The Times" colonial correspondent, commenting on the matter yesterday, suggested that, other considerations apart, the locally recruited Kenya police reserve is inevitably involved in local politics, and Colonel Young had suffered frustration. It is not surprising that he did, because, if the police is not to be independent of local politics, how can we expect justice in the sense which we in the British tradition consider proper?
Again, there are these stories about the Kikuyu Home Guard, which are most disturbing, because the Home Guard is under the Administration and not under the police. There was an article not so long ago written by a Catholic missionary and published in "New Commonwealth," suggesting that there have been cases of abuse of power recently in Kenya. There was one recently in Nyeri, which is still subject to appeal, so I shall not say much about it, but which, as far as the Supreme Court was concerned, it was accepted that there had been Kikuyu Home Guards who had been illegally detaining people for very considerable periods and using violence, even in some cases to the extent of murder, and that all this had been going on under the supposition that it was being done under the Administration and against Mau Mau.
One of the impressions that we seem to get is that the anti-Mau Mau organisation has now become, in some places, as tyrannical as Mau Mau itself. If that is true—and I say that it is only an impression which we obtain from a series of isolated reports and incidents—it is an extremely serious matter. I know that the Governor recently had something to say about improper detention, but this whole series of events makes one very uneasy as to what really is happening in Kenya between the Administration, centrally and locally, and the police, and I therefore hope we shall be given much further enlightenment.
Colonel Young has just resigned, and, presumably, before his resignation, some correspondence passed and I should imagine that he gave some reasons why he felt unable to continue with the reorganisation of the police force. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman can tell us whether this correspondence is to be made available, so that we may know more about this important matter.
I think that in drawing attention to these matters I have at least done something which should bring to the forefront some of the principles involved in this troubled period in Kenya. After all, there are only two ways, it seems to me, of dealing with matters in British Africa. Either we follow what one might call in short the Union of South Africa policy, or we follow the British liberal tradition. There is really no in-between method. If we are to try to follow the British liberal tradition, then it must be done consistently.
However difficult it may be. I feel certain that once one begins to slide on matters of principle, such as independent justice and independent police action, there is really no end to it, because then one slides into the other philosophy. It is because I feel so strongly on that point, and because I know that many people in Kenya feel strongly on it, that I should welcome a statement from the Minister on it this morning.

1.21 p.m.

Mr. C. J. M. Alport: My right hon. Friend the Member for Kelvingrove (Mr. Elliot) has asked me to say that he intended no discourtesy at all, either to the House or to the hon. Lady the Member for Flint, East (Mrs. White), by leaving before she had terminated her speech. For him to have remained would have meant a greater discourtesy in another quarter.
I merely wish to deal with one point. Before I come to it, I would say to the hon. Lady that I think she will find that steps are already being taken by the Administration in Kenya to deal with one of the important points which she raised, that of tackling the problem of rehabilitating the adolescent supporters of the Mau Mau movement. Indeed, I remember seeing, with other members of the delegation, a camp run by a very fine young district officer, whose name, I think, was Nottingham, in which he was carrying out precisely the sort of experiment which the hon. Lady had in mind. As that was a year ago, I have no doubt that the example which he set in that camp has extended throughout the Kikuyu reserve.
May I say to the hon. Member for Eton and Slough (Mr. Fenner Brockway), with whom I have crossed swords on

many previous occasions, how much I welcomed the moderation with which he spoke today? May I also say that I hope that over the Christmas Recess he will contemplate how he would have been placed had he been alive nearly 100 years ago and been a spectator of the struggle between the North and South in the American Civil War. In those circumstances, I think he may find that the principles which he enunciates in respect of self-determination in the 20th century might have been very different had he been dealing with the same sort of problem of self-determination for Confederate America in the 19th century.
I want to say in relation to my main subject—and I am concentrating my remarks strictly on the problem of Kenya—that I believe we have reached a critical moment in the affairs of that Colony, not so much in respect of maintaining law and order, but a critical moment in that, unless there is some adjustment of the attitude of all the communities towards the future of the Colony, it is possible that the progress which has been made during the last 12 months may be reversed.
I believe, in particular, that the European community as a whole must realise and must give practical expression to the realisation that the multi-racial experiment is working and working extremely well, and that it deserves their open support, and not, as appears so frequently, their opposition. If they do nothing else, they must do what every politician has to do, and that is to consider the alternative. This was set out very clearly in a leader in "The Times" this morning, which states:
The success of the multi-racial Government so far is certainly an augury for the future—when Mau Mau can be overcome. It is impossible to see any alternative should it break down. The British Government"—
and I think this goes for both parties—
could never consent to the devolution of so much authority to one community alone. The only alternative proposed locally is a federal partitioning of Kenya which would be unworkable.
Most people there know as well as we do here that it would be unworkable. The leader goes on:
There would almost inevitably have to be a return to Colonial Office rule which would be welcomed by none.


From a practical point of view, those in Kenya who have faced with so much courage the dangers of the present situation, must also face the realities of the political situation. They must realise that we in Britain are not going to uphold a political or social pattern of life in Kenya, with the support of money and men from this country, which, for better or worse, has, in fact, already ceased to exist for some years past even in Great Britain.
Africa, as we know, is going through a period—as, indeed, the hon. Member for Eton and Slough said—of social and political transition. That is always an uncomfortable process, and, very often, is accompanied by extremely violent and unpleasant experiences. The experience which Kenya is facing today is not a unique one. It has happened in the life of almost every community. I think that this knowledge may help them to achieve a surer sense of proportion. They must now consider distant policy as well as the immediate urgencies of the present situation—and realise that out of all this disaster and tragedy may come a far happier and more successful future for the people of Kenya as a whole—provided that all the communities are able to adjust their points of view to the changing circumstances which exist in Africa, in general, and in East Africa in particular.
Classes or communities which want to survive in such a period must be adaptable in their outlook as well as united in their resolve. To adapt one's policy in the light of changing conditions is not a sign of weakness or appeasement, but a condition of survival. After the Mau Mau has been defeated, the European community, and, indeed, all the communities there, will have to realise, and must realise now, that they will be accountable, not to those who have organised Mau Mau—as, indeed, they will not, because Mau Mau will be dead—but to the public opinion and aspirations in other sections of the African community. They will have to face the immense problem of finding a pattern for the new relationships—social, political and economic—which are even now coming into being.
Despite anything that can be done or is hoped for by the three communities, African, Asian and European, Kenya is

never going back to be the Kenya of 1939, or, indeed, the Kenya of 1949. There may be some who will regret that, and a great many who, when they face these new circumstances, will understand that in the process there have been gains as well as losses.
I believe that now, and not after the Royal Commission has reported or after the Mau Mau episode is over, the European community, in particular, must reconsider its whole attitude towards the problem, for instance, of land. In my view, there can be no secure future for Europeans or Africans while both races are separated from each other in reserves, from which the other is excluded, and as a result of which there is as little contact as possible between the peoples of both races.
I realise that what I am about to say is liable to be misunderstood. The idea of a European reserve such as is represented by the White Highlands is a political and economic anachronism today. Tomorrow, it may very well be a positive liability to the European community. I therefore feel that the time has come for that community to try to see what new form of design, not only for land tenure but of relationship to land use in Kenya can be worked out in respect of both communities.
I believe that there are lines upon which a satisfactory solution for all concerned can be produced, without violating the prejudices of, and without running contrary to, the real, long-term interests of any community. For instance, it would be easily possible to reach a conclusion whereby a willing seller of land in the White Highlands would be permitted to sell that land to the Government, and for the Government to be empowered to grant tenancies over that land to people who were able to reach a standard of efficiency in the exercise of agricultural technique and were considered fit to maintain a reasonable standard of agriculture and husbandry in the use of the land in question. The opportunity might very well be available to all communities, irrespective of race, on a basis of voluntary sale to Government only, and not of any form of compulsory confiscation. I am sure that that might be acceptable to all communities.
What is to happen in the White Highlands? Whatever else may happen, there


must come into existence a system of villages, in place of the present squatter system, and those villagers must occupy land in order to exist. If the villagers are to occupy land, even though it is on a tenancy basis, the principle of the extension of tenancy rights to Africans has been conceded. Along those lines there is room for manoeuvre for future policy for the European community.
On the other hand, there is equal importance in reaching a solution which would make it possible within the African reserve for industries to be established which would need European management and supervision. The European managers and supervisors must be able to live near the factories. That means that land would be made available for European tenancies in the reserves, though, obviously on a limited scale. It would mean that European tenants would live in certain sections of the African reserve, where those tenancies were attached with certain forms of employment in a managerial or technical capacity. Along those lines, perhaps, one of the most obstinate and difficult problems of Kenya could be solved.
If Kenya Colony is to achieve a future beyond the existing tragedy of Mau Mau, it is time that views were changed, and that public opinion, which, at present, is naturally so much wrapped up with the urgencies of this emergency situation, was being directed towards a consideration of how to adapt itself to changing circumstances which must have a powerful influence on the future of Kenya.

1.34 p.m.

Mr. C. R. Hobson: I wish to make one or two observations about Cyprus, about which there is a lot of confusion. What has been asked for is not self-determination but union with Greece, which is an entirely different matter. Cyprus has not been Greek for hundreds of years. There is also the question of the Turkish minority.
A lot of the trouble that has now started in Cyprus results from one factor alone. It has been timed to coincide with the transfer of British troops from Suez to Cyprus, and the instigators of this trouble are the Comintern. That is the cause of the trouble. If these troops had been transferred to Malta instead of Cyprus, we should have had the same set of circumstances in Malta. I hope

that there will be full understanding of those circumstances. Union with Greece must not be confused with self-determination. I do not want to develop that point, but to say one or two things about Kenya.
I agree with all the sentiments expressed by all hon. Members on both sides of the House, but I am very concerned about the police. We are faced with the resignation of Colonel Young. I suggest to the Colonial Secretary that he should immediately appoint a British police officer of sufficiently high rank to go out there and to take full charge of the police. I am against local police organisations being in the hands of district commissioners or provisional commissioners. There should be one code of discipline and behaviour. I am particularly concerned about this matter from a constituency point of view. The Conservative candidate in Keighley in 1945, Colonel Dalrymple-White, has been slashed with milk bottles by the police. The cause is being investigated at the moment. Because it is sub judice, I cannot refer further to the case today, but there have unfortunately been questions of perjury also.
Something is seriously wrong with the discipline in that police organisation. Only by having a British police officer in complete charge of the Kenya police shall we be able to avoid occurrences of this kind again. It is absolutely impossible, in view of the state of Kenya at the present time, for development to take place for all races—I use the word advisedly—whether European, Indian or African, if they have no confidence in the police. I feel that they have not confidence at the present moment. The only alternative is one that I may be going gradually towards; I do not know. Some hon. Members on this side of the House think it may be necessary to give General Erskine complete powers over the police, and we may have to do so. There must be co-ordination of police activity in the whole of Kenya. We cannot have unilateral action taken by various inspectors, because it brings the force into discredit. That is one very serious aspect of the problems of this Colony.
I wish the new multi-racial Government every success. It is a step forward in the history of the whole world, and it may be that in Kenya. British ingenuity,


British tolerance and British liberalism will find a way of Government which will solve the problem of inter-racial communities such as exist in various other parts of the world. I hope that every support will be given to the Liberal element in Kenya which is so admirably led by the Hon. Michael Blundell. He is doing a good job. Only by his philosophy coming into operation shall we be able, not only to smash the abominable, bestial, sexual savagery of Mau Mau, but to restore stable government and move towards economic progress. All who have visited that country wish to see it peaceful and making progress at the earliest opportunity.
I realise that the Colonial Secretary may want time for his reply, but there are many more things I would have liked to have said. Kenya has many friends in this House. We wish it well. I am all for having a Kenya Parliamentary delegation of all races to visit this country.

1.39 p.m.

Mr. James Johnson: I want to ask a few questions about Kenya. I listened with the utmost admiration to the hon. Member for Colchester (Mr. Alport) who was a member of the Kenya delegation. He spent some weeks in my company. But there I think he had better spend a few more here with me and then come over to the benches on this side of the House. He made an admirable speech. I could not have said any better, or even half as well, what he said about land reforms in the Colony.
I should like to ask the Minister a few questions, because Kenya is in a critical condition. Others have talked of Colonel Young, and I hope the Minister will make some comment later on the morale of the Kikuyu in the Home Guard and the police, particularly in the Meru district. From what one hears, old tribal scores are being settled under the guise of legality by members of the police or the Home Guard. Turning to the political scene, we should enlist the full cooperation of others besides Europeans in this present critical situation. I should like to know what concessions have been made to Asians and Africans since Lord Chandos was there in the early part of the year.
The Asians set great store by education. I should like to know what is the

right hon. Gentleman's attitude to multiracial education. I know as well as he does the difference in culture and standards between the various communities, but unless we do move soon towards some kind of common school, the future is bleak indeed for the co-operation that we all want. Again, when are the Asians to have their Parliamentary Secretary, promised earlier this year?
On the question of land, I hope the East Africa Land Commission will soon be publishing its findings. Some people have commented about the delay. I hope the delay was not due, as some people have said, to the fact that the Report may not please some Europeans.
I hope we shall see not only a willing buyer and a willing seller as the hon. Member for Colchester said, but access to the European Highlands for people whatever may be the pigmentation of their skin. The test should be one of good husbandry. If present squatters are allowed to stay 12 months on two or three acres amongst the white population, what is the objection to some of these squatters taking a lease for 20, 30 or 40 years on 20 or 30 acres if they are good farmers?
My last point relates to the question of the future constitutional position. There has been a vicious smear campaign against Michael Blundell and Wilfred Havelock who are white members of this Coalition Government, by some of their fellow Europeans. There are many more Liberals in Kenya than some people suppose, and what "The Times" has said this morning has been said for weeks by the "Kenya Weekly News." It is true that there is no future in Kenya for any other than a multi-racial Government. If Mr. Blundell is defeated at the next election by the Federal Independence Party, or if Mr. Blundell and his colleagues were to leave the Government because of any future land and education policies, and thus we lost a multi-racial coalition government in Kenya, the matter will have to be referred back to the Colonial Office. It should be made plain by the Minister that if Dr. Jagan would not work the Guiana Constitution and that was suspended, the same would happen to Kenya.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Keighley (Mr. Hobson) said, the future of Kenya lies in a multi-racial régime. It


is a beautiful land and we all fall a victim to its spell when we go there. Its future lies in all races pulling together, and I hope that no word or deed of ours in this House or outside will mar the future of that colony's multi-racial Government set up by Lord Chandos some 10 months ago.

1.44 p.m.

The Secretary of State for the Colonies (Mr. Alan Lennox-Boyd): We are all grateful to the hon. Member for Eton and Slough (Mr. Fenner Brockway) not only for inaugurating this debate but for the brevity with which he spoke. I think it was very self-sacrificing and cooperative on his part.
Before the House reassembles I shall, I hope, have paid a visit to Nigeria where, as hon. Members know, nearly half the total population of the whole Colonial Empire live. I am much looking forward to that visit. I should like to have taken up a number of points which have been raised about territories other than Kenya, but in the short time available I hope the House will allow me to concentrate almost entirely on Kenya.
With regard to Cyprus, much of what I would have liked to say if I had had time was said by the hon. Member for Keighley (Mr. Hobson). Anyone who calculates the amount of time that the Russian and Iron Curtain countries spend daily broadcasting in Greek these days would agree with the hon. Member. When I last looked at the times, 4½hours a day were devoted to broadcasts in Greek from Warsaw, for what purpose I think we need have very little doubt.
I was asked about the forthcoming elections in Malaya. They are planned to take place in July, and the new Legislature will, I hope, assemble about August. I know that our good wishes will be with the new Legislature.
I should like to say straight away to my right hon. Friend the Member for Kelvingrove (Mr. Elliot), who told me that he had to leave the Chamber, that the suggestion of a visit from Kenya is thoroughly worth taking up with the Governor of Kenya, and I will certainly do that. I think it is an imaginative idea. The Governor will, of course, read this debate and will learn of the general support that the idea has commanded.

I will keep in close touch with him about it and will report to the House at the earliest opportunity. I will also consult on the question of possible Queen's scholarships, though, as my right hon. Friend will know, scholarships granted from this country to a single territory, however deserving, would have to be considered in the light of our obligations over a very wide field.
I should like to say how much I welcome the universal praise which has been given to those who are trying to make the multi-racial Government work in Kenya. I can assure all who are doing it that Her Majesty's Government are solidly behind the conception. I was delighted at the success of the visit of Mr. Michael Blundell and the way in which, among all parties, and, indeed, those unconnected with politics, he established a reputation for far-sightedness and absolute integrity. I am glad that my right hon. Friend the Member for Kelvingrove and the hon. Members for Rugby (Mr. J. Johnson) and Keighley have all given praise to him on his visit.
Coming to land problems, I do not think it would be altogether suitable for me, with only 13 minutes left to me for this debate and on the last day before the Christmas Recess, to deal with this subject. I must, however, make it plain that while I was in Kenya I gave certain undertakings with regard to the respective rights of the community in land reserved to them by ordinance. Of course, I stand absolutely by what I said when I was in Kenya.

Mr. J. Griffiths: When may we expect the Commission's report?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I was about to deal with that. There is no question of the delay in publication of the report being due to any pressure by myself or anyone else in the Department. The Chairman of the Commission thought that it would have reported before the end of the year, but that has not proved possible and the report will come along some time in the early part of the coming year. It will be published simultaneously here and in East Africa. I express the hope that people in this country and in East Africa will read the report before they comment on it. It hope that will not be considered a rather patronising thing to say.

Mr. J. Griffiths: That includes the Government?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: That certainly includes the Government. The Government will have to take a little longer than other hon. Members to read it.
As for the emergency in Kenya and the chain of events, which has been so much discussed today, we ought to remember at all times that less than one-tenth of the territory in that lovely country is in a state of emergency, and that the three tribes affected—the Kikuyu mostly, the Embu and the Meru—are 1½million out of 5¼million in Kenya. There are, of course, among those tribes many who have been staunchly loyal throughout the emergency, and on so many of them the full savagery of Mau Mau has wreaked the worst havoc.
As the House knows, "Operation Anvil" was completed on 25th May and since then there has been a conspicuous improvement. The right hon. Member for Rochester and Chatham (Mr. Bottomley) intervened to suggest that if things were better it was because a large number of people were in detention, but I am sure he has not forgotten that one of the observations in the Commission's Report, which was of the greatest interest and importance, was that which drew attention to the evils at the very heart of Nairobi with which the Government had to deal. I can think of no other way in which it could have been tackled than by an operation of this kind, regrettable though that is.
The terrorist organisation was broken in Nairobi, although attempts are going on to try to reform it, and the organisation is being continuously disturbed in the Reserve. In the Aberdares and Mount Kenya region there is still some support from the passive wing in the Reserve, but it appears to be diminishing. Morale among the terrorists is undoubtedly declining and the amount of information given to the loyalists and the security forces is improving. Our aim is to clear each Mau Mau infested area in turn and to consolidate the area thereby cleared by establishing closer administration and more police as police and troops move forward. Success depends, of course, on the way in which the consolidation is carried out.
Perhaps I may remind the House, at this point, of the extraordinarily interesting and, I believe, valuable social experiment which is taking place in grouping many thousands of Kikuyu together in villages. Started originally for security reasons, it may well lead to a much better and wider life for countless people in the Kikuyu lands in future generations. Health, schools and community development—all are possible in circumstances of that kind.
To give figures, in the Nyeri district alone local leadership is good—and such leadership is available elsewhere—and 134 villages have already been made, catering for over 100,000 people or 48 per cent. of the entire population of that district. The proportion in Fort Hall is smaller—13 per cent.—but there are different circumstances. In Meru 3 per cent. and in Embu 60 per cent. of the whole population are now living in villages.
I am conscious that, although the situation is improving, there are very grave anxieties in the House and elsewhere on certain aspects of the war against terrorism. The hon. Member for Eton and Slough referred to surrenders. The number of surrenders has risen considerably in the last two months. There have been 621 surrenders between August last year and 30th November this year, and 142 of them took place between 1st October and 30th November. I, too, deplore the untimely fate which befell the imaginative attempt to get that surrender policy under way.
The surrender terms of August, 1953, remain in existence and are being widely proclaimed. They are that terrorists would not be executed for carrying arms or ammunition or consorting. If any leaders came forward and satisfied the Government that they could bring people along with them, the Government would respond to that initiative, but there is no central headquarters which the Government can approach. I can assure the House that the Government of Kenya have the surrender policy constantly under review and are certainly not reluctant to adjust and adapt it in the light of changed circumstances and new opportunities.
I gave the hon. Member for Eton and Slough an answer about capital punishment on 16th December, from which he


quoted today. I can assure him that in respect of any capital cases other than murder, the cases are not brought to court unless there is evidence that the accused is an active terrorist or helper of active terrorists, but it would be misleading the country to give the impression that the only mortal crimes against the community are those which are classified as murder. The carrying of arms and of ammunition is almost as serious as the act of murder, and while the Government of Kenya have under constant review also the possibility of reducing the number of offences for which the death penalty is at present prescribed—and I am always in touch with them about that—we must allow them the elasticity which they need to meet a constantly changing situation.
A number of hon. Members have referred to the resignation of Colonel Young, but before I deal with that perhaps I should answer one point raised by the the hon. Lady the Member for Flint, East (Mrs. White) about detention camps. She asked me whether there was evidence that there had been a deliberate spreading of disease in detention camps by Mau Mau who are detained. There is no proof, but when I was in Manyani it was made clear to me that there was a strong possibility that that was so. One of the most important and distressing parts of the Administration is to clear up cases of Mau Mau propaganda in the detention camps themselves. Nothing could be worse from the point of view of administration than the spreading of disease in detention camps.

Mr. J. Griffiths: The camps are too big.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I agree that there is always danger in camps on that scale that an epidemic might run right through them. We are anxious to get smaller camps and anxious above all to see people move to works camps. I am delighted to know that while there are 17,000 in works camps at the moment, it is intended to extend that to at least 30,000, and active steps are being taken to bring that about.
The resignation of Colonel Young is a matter of very great importance which deserves much longer treatment that I can give it today. I am very sorry indeed that Colonel Young, who is a most distinguished officer, and has done fine

work in Kenya, has felt it necessary to resign, but I would prefer not to elaborate, because of the short time available and also because I am awaiting further information from the Governor of Kenya. Of course, there are bound to be difficulties when the police are confronted with one of the judges called a dual loyalty—the duty to pursue a murder on the one hand and the duty, also, not to hold up the finding of vital operational intelligence on the other hand.
There are bound to be those sort of difficulties, but I must point out that in Kenya we have a most efficient C.I.D. which is admirably led and which, in the proper exercise of its duties, can absolutely rely on full Government support. I do not think that the hon. Lady was quite right, if I may say so, in giving the sort of analogy which she gave, based rather on our own experience here. She said, for example, that if the police were to be interfered with by politicians we should be in an extraordinary position. Of course we should, but perhaps she is thinking of a country like ours with our own political system. In Kenya, those who are administering the country are the provincial commissioners and the district officers, and they are not political leaders but experienced and impartial guides to the people who live in their territories. Clearly the overall responsibility for law and order must rest with the provincial commissioner and the district officer. I do not think that can be disputed.

Mr. Griffiths: I appreciate that we are all in a difficulty here, but in view of the Press comments which have already been made, will the Secretary of State cause to be published either the correspondence which has taken place between Colonel Young and the Governor, which lead to his resignation, or a full statement setting out the conflict which arose and which led to his resignation, so that hon. Members may be able to form a judgment about the matter? All we have at the moment are casual Press reports.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I cannot give an undertaking that the correspondence will be published, because that is frequently confidential and written in the belief that it would not be published. That would be out of the question. But I will look into the possibility of some factual statement being prepared so as better to


inform hon. Members about the issues involved. I can give no undertaking, as the right hon. Gentleman will realise, but I will look at the suggestion sympathetically.
Colonel Young was over here in November last. When I saw him I then had reason to hope that the difficulties which had arisen about the relationship between the Administration and the police would be settled by the discussions of the working party which was to be set up for that purpose. I personally became convinced that Colonel Young was returning to Kenya in a happier state of mind and there was likely to be fruitful co-operation on that working party. I am very sorry that has not been so.
The hon. Member for Keighley said he hoped that a Britisher would succeed Colonel Young. The communiqué which was issued said:
On Colonel Young's departure, his place as Commissioner of the Kenya Police will be taken up by Mr. Richard C. Catling, Deputy Commissioner and Commissioner-Designate, who arrived in Kenya from Malaya in July, 1954. Mr. Catling began his police career in Palestine, in 1935, and in 1948 was transferred to Malaya.
I know that Kenya will have in him a devoted leader who enjoys the greatest respect. There is so much I should like to have talked about on future hopes and ambitions for Kenya, not least the Swynnerton Plan and all that it offers for agriculture. I hope that soon after we return from the Christmas Recess time may be found for a fuller discussion.

AIRCRAFT NOISE, ABINGDON

2.1 p.m.

Mr. Airey Neave: Noise from aircraft is a source of annoyance in many parts of the country, but I think the very real inconvenience it can cause is usually mixed with the admiration we all have for the way in which the Royal Air Force carries out its duties. Certainly, in the district of Abingdon, the question of noise in which I am grateful to be able to discuss, there is a general feeling of respect for the Royal Air Force.
In view of the fact that very real disturbance is caused by the noise of aircraft of Transport Command stationed at Abingdon I hope that nothing I say today,

and nothing which will in future be said about this matter, will do anything to endanger good relations between the civil population and the Royal Air Force. I am sure that that is one of the things we should preserve.
As the Under-Secretary of State for Air well knows, it is a very difficult matter to mitigate the noise from Service aircraft, particularly from four-engined Service aircraft. My hon. Friend will agree that this is a matter in which emotion should be tempered with reason and perhaps it should not be dealt with purely from the point of view of those who feel strongly about it—as, indeed, they must—because, clearly, there is very grave necessity for safe training for our airmen.
The question is: can it be mitigated? There have been complaints for some time from Abingdon. For some months past people have complained to me and I have been in correspondence with my hon. Friend. They have complained that their rest at night has been disturbed and their daily lives have been subjected to considerable noise and inconvenience. When in hospital or school they have been annoyed by aircraft flying low over the roofs. This happens in an area where the population has more or less doubled in the last few years—an area within about 6,000 yards radius from Abingdon aerodrome.
The immediate cause is the fact that on this important aerodrome four-engined aircraft—mainly Hastings—are stationed and, in addition to the ordinary operational duties of Transport Command, they carry out what is known as continuation training. It is necessary for them to make circuits of the aerodrome. One of the main complaints about the way in which training is carried out is that often it is below the regulation altitude for making a circuit of the aerodrome, which, I understand, is 500 feet. This matter was raised by my predecessor the noble Lord, Lord Glyn. At that time York aircraft, which, I understand, are particularly noisy, were stationed at the aerodrome.
Eventually, the Yorks were replaced by Hastings but, as a result of correspondence I have had with my hon. Friend, I have learned that two Yorks are being retained for training purposes. They are noisy aircraft and I know that my


hon. Friend would seriously consider removing them if he were not absolutely sure that they were essential for training. I should like to hear his comment on that, because it is said in the district that the existence of these two York aircraft there adds greatly to the noise which people suffer.
The next thing that happened in regard to the series of protests and complaints about noise and low flying was that when the main runway of the aerodrome was under repair during the summer months a great deal more noise was occasioned because a shorter runway was in use. Prominent in bringing this matter to the attention of the Secretary of State for Air was the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, who has bought a house on the edge of the airfield. I, too, have received petitions and letters which seem to reveal a serious state of affairs. People complain that loss of sleep has brought them to a nervous state.
A great deal of this is already known to my hon. Friend and in the short time available I will not attempt to detail them because my hon. Friend knows of them already. I know that he is entirely sympathetic and fully realises that there is genuine cause for complaint. The problem he and all of us have to face is whether, in the national interest of defence and the necessity for continuation training, my hon. Friend can do anything to alleviate the problem.
The two debates in which Lard Lucas spoke in another place resulted in a reply from the Secretary of State for Air in which he said it was not possible to restrict the training. But, during the time the main runway was under repair, he cut down the night flying to a certain extent. I wish to ask what is now the position when the main runway is back in operation and whether, as it were, we have now gone back to the status quo? The Secretary of State for Air did say that if anything further could be done to mitigate the trouble without inflicting hardship he would do it. I take it that he and my hon. Friend will keep the matter continuously under review.
The debates in another place had one feature in that attacks were made by Lord Lucas of Chilworth on the attitude of the Royal Air Force and the Department to the feelings of local people on this matter. He suggested that they were showing

indifference to the inconvenience which was being suffered. That has not been my experience. I certainly do not associate myself with any such criticism, either of the Royal Air Force, or the Air Ministry in this matter. I am fully well aware that they are doing their best to alleviate what undoubtedly is a nuisance.
The Station Commander at Abingdon has behaved throughout this very considerable controversy in the district with common sense and tact. My hon. Friend has been to Abingdon to see what is going on there and I know that he is fully aware of the position. But the problem remains and, obviously, it will need continuous consideration, at least while it is necessary to use this aerodrome for four-engined transport aircraft.
With Lord Lucas, I attended a public meeting in November as a result of which I decided to raise the matter further in this House. On hearing what people had to say, there was no doubt at all that while they were not unmindful of the debt which they owed to the R.A.F. for its services to the nation in the last war, they felt that something could be done in regard to rearranging this training so that they did not suffer quite so much noise at night.
As to particular complaints, one to which I have already referred and of which I ask my hon. Friend to take particular notice is one on which local councils have written to me. It is that the circuits of the aerodrome which are made during night flying, and indeed by day, for the purposes of training are sometimes made at a lower altitude than 500 feet. If that is so, it calls for an inquiry. I know that it is not possible to be always there to control these things, but I hope that my hon. Friend will indicate that the strictest flying discipline is maintained in the locality, so that the public can be reassured on this matter.
The second complaint, of course, is of the actual noise that is made by aircraft flying low, as they must do when taking-off or landing and when they need to make authorised low altitude flights on a circuit of the aerodrome. I realise that flying will begin later during the summer, but would it not be possible during the course of the year to ensure that flying is done at reasonable hours so that it does not interfere with the sleep of those who have to go out early in the morning?


A large majority of those who are living in the area are workers from industrialised Oxford. If it were possible to stop flying at midnight, or something like that, I am sure that it would be very much appreciated.
Three allegations were made by Lord Lucas of Chilworth during the course of the two debates which have been held in another place on this subject. I mention them because I have no special knowledge of aircraft and I am not able to say what the proper answer is. Indeed, the allegations were denied by the noble Lord the Secretary of State for Air during those discussions. The allegations, however, are sufficiently disturbing to the public, who are my constituents in this case, and indeed to others outside Abingdon who may read them, as to require an answer and a reassurance that there is no danger to civilians in the neighbourhood of this aerodrome.
Lord Lucas said, first, that the aerodrome is "unsuitable," In that connection, is it impossible to find an alternative satellite aerodrome in the district from which some of this training could be done? The noble Lord said that it was "unsuitable" and I take it, by implication, that it was not safe. He said that blind flying training was done with a simulated engine failure on take-off which, also, was not safe. The implication there was that the pilot could not see what he was doing and did not know his height. Finally, he said that York and Hastings aircraft, which are the aircraft actually stationed at this aerodrome, are dangerous and obsolete. That is a very serious thing to say. It was denied by the Secretary of State for Air, but since a large number of people must have read that statement I think that it is very necessary that the Under Secretary should say something about it to reassure us.
This problem of Abingdon is a difficult one, and it is realised to be so. The local people are suffering a genuine grievance in that while they may have found the noise of our 'bombers going over to attack the enemy during the war very comforting, they now find that they are very often kept awake at night, and some people are affected by it both physically and nervously.
There is one matter which does not actually concern my hon. Friend's Department and that is that the proposal

to erect new houses in the district should be the subject of discussion with the planning authority. The point made in another place by my predecessor, Lord Glyn, that in future the Air Ministry should discuss with planning authorities the fixing of sites for aerodromes, seems to me a matter of great importance. Although it may be said that this aerodrome was already there at Abingdon before the houses were built, that is not the point. The point is that this is an aerodrome at which heavy four-engined aircraft, which cause a great deal of noise, are being used.
I would ask my hon. Friend to watch the whole of this matter, particularly flying discipline, to tell us, if he can, what is the future with regard to the aerodrome and whether it is possible to indicate what type of aircraft are likely to be stationed there in the future. I would also ask that, having regard to the very considerable population which surrounds the aerodrome, he should try at the earliest possible moment one of the other alternatives which have been suggested. I hope, also, that he will work towards some compromise in arranging a flying programme which would allow people to rest after their labours in the day in Oxford or in some part of my constituency and, at the same time, would meet the essential flying needs of the R.A.F. and of our defence programme.

2.14 p.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for Air (Mr. George Ward): My noble Friend the Secretary of State for Air and I have personally examined very carefully the complaints of noise from aircraft stationed at the R.A.F. Station, Abingdon. Our examination has shown that there are three main problems which have been touched upon by my hon. Friend the Member for Abingdon (Mr. Neave). The first is whether the R.A.F. can stop flying at Abingdon altogether. The second is the question whether, if we cannot stop flying, we could move other squadrons to Abingdon which would cause less disturbance to local inhabitants than the present squadrons do. The third is whether, if we can do neither of these things, there is any more we can do to lessen the disturbance of which my hon. Friend's constituents complain.
On the first point, we have no facilities available elsewhere which could be


used by the squadrons which are at present based at Abingdon. If we were to stop using Abingdon as an airfield we should be faced with very considerable expenditure in creating new facilities elsewhere. While I am on this point, it might be convenient to reply to one of the points which were raised by my hon. Friend—that relating to the planning of housing development. I would remind my hon. Friend that Abingdon has been an airfield since 1932 and represents at today's prices a capital investment of about£6 million of the taxpayers' money.
On the second point of whether we could replace the existing squadrons at Abingdon with squadrons which would cause less disturbance, it is very difficult to assess accurately the noise factor of different types of aircraft. We know from complaints which we have received in the past that some types of aircraft are disliked by the population more than others, and it is true to say that, on the whole, jet aircraft are disliked more than piston-engined aircraft. The Hastings and Yorks are, of course, piston-engined. The number of take-offs and landings, and especially night flying, affect the problem when one is trying to assess the amount of disturbance caused. However, I am satisfied, after studying this matter quite carefully, that there are no flying uses to which we could put Abingdon without causing as much, if not greater, disturbance to the people living near the station.
Ever since Abingdon became a Transport Command station, in 1946, we have been very careful to reduce disturbance to the local population as much as we possibly could, and over the last three years or so there have been fewer movements at the station because two of the squadrons now there are employed on doing long range work and the aircraft are often away for several days at a time. The movements in 1952 were 18,135 by day and 12,543 by night. In 1954, they will have dropped to 17,650 by day and 6,850 by night—reductions of 3 per cent. and 45 per cent. by day and night respectively.
We are, therefore, left with only the third possibility, whether there is anything we can do to reduce the noise from the aircraft at present based on Abingdon. Abingdon has been for some years, and

still is, one of the main Transport Command airfields. It is used by squadrons equipped with four-engined Hastings for normal operational work and for parachute training. The pilots in these machines, in addition to their normal operations have, as my hon. Friend has already said, to carry out what is known as continuation training, and it is this training which has been the particular cause of complaints which we have received in recent weeks.
I can assure my hon. Friend that this training is absolutely essential to ensure a high degree of competence by each pilot to deal successfully with an emergency, should it arise, in the course of normal operational flights. Unless the pilot goes through a certain programme of specific training every month, he is not regarded as qualified to carry passengers and to fly passenger aircraft. The safety of the passengers, of the aircraft and, indeed, of the people on the ground all depend on this continuation training, and I am very glad to say—touching wood, of which this Box is, fortunately, made—that no passenger has been killed in a Transport Command aircraft since July, 1948.
If we cut down this training to reduce disturbance we should be taking a quite unjustified risk with lives and materials. These precautions are not peculiar to transport aircraft, but similar continuation training is carried out at all operational airfields. To accept a lower standard of training at one would inevitably lead to a lowering of safety standards throughout the Royal Air Force. I can say at once that we have no intention whatever of lowering our safety standards in this way, but I assure my hon. Friend that we shall, as my noble Friend said in another place last week, look at the matter again, and we shall carry out the necessary training to maintain these standards in such a way as to cause the least possible diturbance to the civil population.
In that connection, we shall give special consideration to the hours when night flying is carried out during the summer months. In the winter months, when we get the long nights, the problem is not so much one of the number of hours of darkness available for training as it is the number of nights on which there is


suitable weather. In the summer, naturally, we get better weather, though the nights are very much shorter.
My hon. Friend mentioned the period from 22nd August to 22nd November when one runway was out of action under repair. It is quite true that during that period we did have to accept some dislocation of the programme. But that was exceptional and we resumed normal flying as soon as we possibly could because of the vital importance of the training. I should not like it to be thought that because we did accept some dislocation when this runway was out of action we could do it in the normal course of events.
We do try to finish night flying as early as possible, but, unfortunately, the weather is not often on our side. Bad weather often restricts the number of nights on which flying can be done. As the continuation training programme must be completed each month we have, unfortunately, to fly later at night if the number of nights suitable for flying is fewer than we need. But, on the other hand, this means that there are more nights entirely free from flying. So, in November last at Abingdon, they were able to fly on 23 days but only on 14 nights. Nevertheless, on only one night did flying continue after 11.45 p.m. and only on five nights after 10.30.
My hon. Friend put several points about the continuation training and he spoke about the low flying which it is alleged takes place below the 600 feet level. The regulations are quite specific on this point, and this continuation training is never carried out below 600 feet. I am sure, however, that my hon. Friend will realise that it is not easy even for a qualified pilot to judge from the ground the difference between 600 feet and something a little lower, especially at night. I would ask him to accept that this flying is not carried out below 600 feet, but that does not mean to say that if we ever found a pilot carrying out training below 600 feet in contravention of the regulations we should not immediately take very severe disciplinary action against him.
On the safety point, I can assure my hon. Friend and his constituents that there is no danger whatever attached

to these continuation exercises. Where instrument take-offs and landings are practised there is always a safety pilot sitting alongside the other pilot with dual controls. Never is more than one engine out of four cut off to simulate engine failure on take-off. These are very necessary exercises, and, of course, these low approaches which have to be done are very necessary, because if the weather does deteriorate badly in a normal operational flight the pilot must know how to make a low approach below cloud level in order to get his valuable aircraft and crew down. Finally, of course, none of these exercises is carried out with a heavily loaded aircraft. It is always lightly loaded.
As to the point about aircraft being dangerous and obsolete, I can assure my hon. Friend that the Hastings is neither, and that I propose to take off in one next Tuesday and shall fly round the Middle East in it with the greatest confidence. On the question of the York aircraft, there are only two of them now. They are noisy, but they are away from Abingdon much of the time, they are doing an essential job there, and it would be extremely inconvenient if we had to move them elsewhere.
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for the moderate and constructive way in which he has approached this problem, particularly for the tribute he paid to the Station Commander at Abingdon, which I would like to endorse. I am also grateful to him for trying to get this problem back on to a reasonable basis, and away from that on which it has been for too long in recent weeks in another place. We do not pretend that there is no problem here. We are very conscious of the effect of aircraft noise on the civil population, particularly on the very old, the very young and the sick. As I have shown, in this case, as in every other which comes to our attention, we do our level best to improve the situation as far as we can. Abingdon is by no means an isolated case. We get these complaints from all over the country.
I hope my hon. Friend will forgive me if I say that I honestly do not feel that the position at Abingdon is as serious as has been made out in some quarters. Indeed, I would like to read part of a letter which I have received from one of his


constituents—I have it here if he wants to see it:
I have read in the local paper with much interest and disgust the complaint about night and low flying from the R.A.F. Station, Abingdon. I have lived in Abingdon now for over 25 years, at present I live within½mile of the station and I can assure you that the night flying does not worry me much. I am a working man. My job as a bus driver is all shift work rising at 4.30 a.m. two weeks out of three, so if anybody need complain I think it's me, but I say 'Carry on with the flying.'
Whilst writing this letter night flying is in progress, and the aircraft are not taking off every 8 minutes, but 2 in half an hour. If night flying by the R.A.F. at Abingdon is to be cut or stopped just to suit some of the public the Air Ministry may as well stop the flying from Heathrow Airport, which has a far greater built-up area than Abingdon.
This letter shows that there are some people there who do not regard this as a very serious problem.
If this small and densely populated country is to have an adequate air defence, some inconvenience is bound to be caused to the civilian public, especially when they live near an airfield. The nearer they live to an airfield, the more disturbance they are bound to suffer. I want to repeat the assurance which my noble Friend gave in another place last week, that we really study these problems and do not act carelessly or in bad faith or in neglect of the feelings of the civil population.

AIRWAYS CORPORATIONS (TRADE UNIONS)

2.34 p.m.

Mr. Niall Macpherson: The question I wish to raise this afternoon also concerns flying and, in a sense, noise. However, the noise is not the noise of aircraft and has nothing to do with the R.A.F. Nor has it to do with British European Airways and the recent trouble that has arisen over the holding of mass meetings in Corporation time. It has to do with the principle of the closed shop and the methods that are being pursued to achieve it. This, I submit, is not just a matter for the unions concerned, but it is a matter of concern to the House, because it affects the liberties of the subject and is therefore a matter for which the House cannot divest itself of responsibility.
I shall not speak of theory, I shall speak of a severely practical instance of

how the closed shop works. I shall give the House a concrete example, and I shall seek redress. The example I shall give seems to me to be all the more intolerable because it concerns the practice of the closed shop in a nationalised industry over which this House has more direct control, through the Minister whom it controls, than any other form of industry.
The union concerned is the Aeronautical Engineers Association, and I must go back into history to make the case clear. This union was started during the war to meet the needs of civilian aircraft maintenance staff, both in civil aircraft and in the R.A.F. The aircraft maintenance staff are those who have a duty to ensure and certify the airworthiness of operational aircraft. I need not stress to the House the importance of this work.
It would seem natural that in a new and expanding industry there should be a new union to meet its needs the more so, since the principal union in the engineering field, the A.E.U., had not admitted into its ranks before the war anyone employed in the civilian aircraft maintenance industry. So, before the war, there was no union which could be treated as the special union of the aircraft maintenance men. It has been said that the Ae.E.A. was a breakaway union. This is demonstrably untrue, though I cannot now go into the proof of that. It was formed roughly by four elements ex-R.A.F. men, men who had no union, men who undertook training in the aircraft maintenance work in anticipation of war, and men who subsequently were called for training once the war had started.
During the war, the big unions started to take an interest in the civilian aircraft maintenance industry. The maintenance men themselves then had the choice either of joining a big union, with all its advantages of experience and superior financial position, or of joining a small union of their own in which they could be represented by individuals whom they knew and had themselves elected, which would maintain close contact and esprit de corps and would represent that industry alone. Many of them joined the latter union.
The tussle between the unions really started in 1946 as a result of the opposition of the big unions to the A.E.A.


The difficulties with which the A.E.A. has been faced really arose out of action taken by this House. They arose out of the Civil Aviation Act, 1946, because, during the passage of the Bill, the Labour Government introduced an Amendment to its own Measure. That Amendment changed the Bill so that it was no longer necessary, as it would have been under the original wording, for the Corporations to recognise the Ae.E.A., and left it purely within the discretion of the Corporation whether to recognise the union or not. It is still possible for the Corporations to recognise the Ae.E.A. for the purpose of negotiations. The point that I wish very strongly to make is that it was political action which was at the root of the trouble, and I maintain that it is only by political action that the situation can be altered.
It was from that time, in 1946, that the poaching of Ae.E.A. members started. Full advantage was taken of the wind-up of the British South American Airways Corporation, but it was not until after 1948 that any real progress was made in breaking down the Ae.E.A. membership. The reason the breakdown started was that the Corporations entered into an agreement with the union concerned that, where in any hangar or shop virtually all the employees were members of the unions forming part of the National Joint Council, the Corporations should treat it as what was known as a 100 per cent. shop or a full union shop and not post either members of the Aeronautical Engineers Association or non-union men to it.
That principle was stretched to unimaginable lengths. Many new hangars and shops have been set up at London Airport in recent years. The tendency was—I do not say that it happened in every case—to start off by posting a small number of N.J.C. union members to the hangar and then declaring it a 100 per cent. shop. I give the example of the big new hangar which is now being established. I understand that about 7,000 will be employed there. Some 70 or 80 men were posted there—it is a complete central repair and maintenance unit—and on the basis of that, because they are all members of N.J.C. unions, the whole hangar is a closed shop.
It may be said that there is nothing to prevent members of the Aeronautical

Engineers Association being given work in such closed shops. That is true, but on one condition, that they cease to be members of the Aeronautical Engineers Association and join one of the N.J.C. unions. It has been said that there has really been no evidence of victimisation or intimidation. It is very difficult to get such evidence. When a man is interviewed, he and the person interviewing him are normally alone. I have been told—I can, of course, only give this from one side—of instances where those who are interviewed have been told in terms that if they repeat outside what has been said at that interview it will be denied. There is also the matter of promotion. I should be grateful if my hon. Friend would ascertain how many members of the Aeronautical Engineers Association have been promoted during the last five years and have remained members of the Ae.E.A. The fact is that they are denied promotion unless they change their union.
There is also the question of presenting grievances. It is said that there is nothing to prevent an individual presenting his grievance to the management. That is true, but only provided that his grievance has nothing to do with terms and conditions of work, which are negotiated by the National Joint Council. What happens? In the case, for instance, of bonus payments by British European Airways, if a man has an individual case which is a matter of conditions of work and pay he has to go through the National Joint Council union. But the N.J.C. union representatives decline to take up the case unless the man joins one of their unions.
Hon. Members may wonder why they have not seen more about this in the Press. There is a very good reason. Industrial correspondents are dependent to a very large extent upon the favour of the big unions for their livelihood. If they took up the case of the Aeronautical Engineers Association they would lose that favour.
Can these men go to the Minister? They tried to go to the Minister, but the Minister told them that because they have not gone through the normal channels he could not see them. They cannot go through the normal channels; they know by experience that it is not worth trying. Time and time again they have been


frustrated in trying to go through the normal channels.
The result of all this is that at the present time there are only two maintenance and repair sections in the British Overseas Airways Corporation in which there are Ae.E.A. members. Ae.E.A. members have gradually been squeezed and squeezed in this way. The story with which I shall conclude indicates how it is done.
I want to give the facts regarding the sequence of events in regard to a report Which appeared in "The Times" the other day to the effect that agreement had been reached between the unions and the Corporation about the shop in which the six Constellations which are being purchased from Capital Airlines are to be serviced and maintained. There were, broadly speaking, at any rate up to last September, two maintenance and repair sections in which Ae.E.A. members served. In one section Comets, Yorks and Hermes were serviced, and in the other Stratocruisers and Constellations. I might say in passing that in the Stratocruiser-Constellation fleet hangars the conditions of work are the worst in the whole of London Airport. It so happens that it is impossible to get the Stratocruisers into the sheds, and, therefore, it is necessary to work with the doors open, and in those sheds there are none of the amenities which exist in the more modern hangars.
When this first arose in September there was what is known as a panel meeting between the management and the shop stewards affecting No. 8 hangar, and it was announced that the Constellations were to be serviced there. There followed a mass meeting organised by a Mr. Maitland, who, I understand, is a shop steward in that hangar. He is a member of the E.T.U. He is a Communist, and I understand that he is the man who ran the Lyons strike and that he is chairman of the Communist group at London Airport.
Mr. Maitland wanted to make the hangar a 100 per cent. shop. He did not in the first place get the support that he wanted. He arranged a second meeting, but still did not get the support and had to cancel it. In the meantime a petition was sent to the Corporation signed by 103 members from the shop asking that the persecution of the A.E.A.

should stop and that they should be recognised for the purposes of negotiation.
That was about the middle of November. Almost every union was represented among those 103 signatures. After that there was a private meeting of shop stewards called by Mr. Maitland to reverse the decision. I understand that he threatened to have the signatories branched for having signed that petition.
Following that there was another panel meeting which I am told lasted one and a half days, from 7th to 8th December. The minutes are not yet published, so I can speak only of the results. There followed a mass meeting in what is now known as the "Kremlin Hangar," that is No. 8 Hangar.
Mr. Maitland then announced that the Corporation had agreed to move five of the leading Aeronautical Engineering Association men to the Stratocruiser hangar and to deal with the remainder one at a time if they refused to join the National Joint Council Union. The five included a member of the Aeronautical Engineers Association's branch committee, who had a short time before been promised promotion if he would leave the Association.
A day or two later another Ae.E.A. man was posted away to encourage the others. Now another five men have been posted with effect from 20th December. This morning one man from the new hangar was interviewed by the base foreman who is a management official and was given 15 minutes in which to make up his mind to leave his present union or to be posted to another hangar, possibly on other work—not work on aircraft. This man has been employed by B.O.A.C. and formerly by British Airways since 1936.
Originally there were 35 Ae.E.A. members in that hangar, roughly half the maintenance staff there. What has happened to the remainder of those men? There were also some non-union men, and I do not know what has happened to them. If they have joined a National Joint Council Union, does my hon. Friend think that that is intimidation, or how would he describe it? They had to join it or be transferred to another hangar in which they would have had no hope of promotion so long as they belonged to the Ae.E.A.
If my hon. Friend doubts the existence of intimidation, will he make inquiries, as I have already asked, among Ae.E.A. members to find how many have been promoted in the last five years and are still members of the Ae.E.A.? I realise that my hon. Friend may not be able to answer all the points, because he will not have detailed information. I also realise that he may have contradictory information on some of those points. My information comes from one side, his from another.
The British Overseas Airways Corporation are not impartial in this matter, as the particular case I have mentioned shows. If the information that I have given to the House conflicts with the information in the possession of the Minister, I ask him not to assume that the information in his possession is necessarily correct. I believe in the truth of the information in my possession, and I believe that it is his duty to ensure that this long-standing wrong is righted and Ae.E.A. is given official recognition.
Let me finish with a quotation:
Freedom of association implies not only that an employee shall be free to join whatever association he wishes but that also that the association which he and his fellows join will be recognised by his employer for purposes of collective bargaining. Any pronouncement by an employer that employees are free to join a trade union if they wish is an impertinent presumption in a free country unless an employer willingly accepts the obligation of recognising the association which his workers join.
That is paragraph 39 of the evidence submitted by the T.U.C. to the Beveridge Committee on the B.B.C.

2.54 p.m.

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport and Civil Aviation (Mr. John Profumo): In the short time at my disposal, I should like to answer some of the very challenging problems my hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries (Mr. N. Macpherson) has put before the House. All who know my hon. Friend will agree that his contributions to our debates are always marked for their sincerity and forthrightness, and therefore we invariably listen to him with the greatest interest and sympathy. I am sure that he will acquit me of discourtesy if I make it plain at the outset that I cannot accept—in fact, must strongly refute—his accusation

of the individual victimisation of employees within the Airways Corporations.
At the same time, I am grateful to him for the opportunity of putting the facts in their true perspective and making clear the Government's position in all this. That members of the A.E.A. feel that they have a grievance is without doubt, but that the status of their union is a matter which should, or can, call for action by Her Majesty's Government is a fundamental misconception.
In so far as conditions of employment are concerned, that must be a matter for settlement between employees and management, and it would be wholly inappropriate and contrary to long and well established custom generally agreed throughout industry for the Government to seek to interfere in such matters. I will not go back over the whole history of the A.E.A. This is a long and complicated story. I will come at once to the three main themes which ran through my hon. Friend's speech.
First of all, on the question of recognition, the legal position of the Corporations is governed by Section 20 of the Air Corporations Act, 1949, the effect of which is to impose on them the direct and sole responsibility to decide with which organisations they consider it appropriate to seek consultation in order to establish the necessary machinery for the purposes of negotiation and consultation. The Corporations carried out this statutory obligation in 1946 when the National Joint Council for Civil Air Transport was established. The constitution of this body does not allow the Corporations to dictate the composition of the trade union side of the Council. No one could expect them for one moment voluntarily to endanger the existing machinery—which has been built up in the N.J.C.—by recognising the A.E.A. Any such recognition by the Corporations must depend on the Association being elected to the trade union side of the N.J.C. by the unions which comprise that side.
Since the Corporations have fulfilled their statutory duty, there is no ground on which my right hon. Friend can intervene. The Government cannot take sides in disputes concerning trade union recognition, or representation on negotiating machinery, which must be settled within the industry itself.
The fact that an industry is nationalised makes no difference. Although these are publicly owned, the actual employer in each case is not the Government, but the board or corporation entrusted by Parliament with the management of the industry concerned. In accordance with established traditions of industrial self-government, these boards and corporations are therefore left to manage their own labour relations without Government direction or control.
Now let me deal with the question of what my hon. Friend refers to as "the closed shop." There is a fundamental difference between the closed shop and a 100 per cent. organisation. An agreement was made in 1948 between the Corporations and the unions through the N.J.C. It was this to which my hon. Friend referred. By this agreement, when any T.U.C.-affiliated union, or group of affiliated unions, achieves 100 per cent. membership in defined and allocated categories of staff working in well recognised organisational units the employees' side of the N.J.C. so notifies the employers' side, who "take note" of the situation.
Under that agreement in such circumstances the Corporation undertakes to refrain from taking provocative action, but this is without prejudice to their right to put anyone into such organisational units or shops if the nature of the work demands it. This arrangement has been applied to shops where the great majority of employees belong to affiliated unions but which contain a pocket of nonaffiliated men. In such instances "no provocative action" is interpreted by leaving the existing personnel where they are but refraining from putting in additional non-affiliates unless the work demands it. I understand that this situation prevails in B.O.A.C. today and that there is no closed shop as such.
My hon. Friend referred to the A.E.U. Both the A.E.U. and the E.T.U. are large and well established unions which are recognised in many industries and services throughout the country as the appropriate bodies to represent the workers in the crafts they cover. This is the case in the Airways Corporations.
It would be quite wrong to imagine that either Corporation is permitting any sinister activities in its midst. They simply adhere to the established prin-

ciple that a man's job, except in exceptional circumstances, shall not be endangered because of his political beliefs.
Now I come to the specific case arising from the modification of certain Constellation aircraft. It appears to be necessary to carry out this work outside the new hanger because a special team of men is needed and there is no room inside. When this was known, a protest was made to the management on the ground that this would mean that some recognised union men would have to work alongside non-affiliated employees. A resolution was passed declaring "black" any work on these Constellations done in any shop which was not 100 per cent. organised. The management rejected this demand as not being in accordance with the N.J.C. agreement and the resolution was withdrawn. It is true that some 10 members of the Ae.E.A. have been transferred from this particular work, but they have been given the same basic conditions elsewhere within the organisation. It should also be noted that some affiliated employees have been moved on to the job from elsewhere. The management must have the right to place its labour where it regards it best employed.
Normally, neither the Corporations nor I have any means of knowing to what union, if any, individual employees belong, but in this case I happen to have it on the authority of the General Secretary of the Ae.E.A. himself that, even after the transfer of these 10 men, approximately 25 have been left on the job. One cannot possibly therefore argue that this is a closed shop or that the management have victimised any individual employees. It goes without saying, of course, that neither the Government nor the Corporation can in any way be responsible for internal stresses or pressure which may exist as between the individual members of one trade union and another.
The only way in which the Government can be remotely concerned with this general problem is because of its general desire to see that nobody loses his job because of his trade union membership or, indeed, lack of it.
This brings me to the question of alleged individual victimisation. As my hon. Friend is aware, both Sir Miles Thomas and Lord Douglas have given my right hon. Friend assurances that they


will not countenance victimisation of individual A.E.A. members and have undertaken to investigate personally any allegations that are brought to their notice. So far, in spite of what my hon. Friend says, they have not found any foundation in any such charges.
In conclusion, let me reiterate, in what I am afraid has been a rather rushed reply to my hon. Friend due to the late hour, the main points arising out of this issue. First, neither the Government nor the Corporation have any locus regarding the inclusion of the A.E.A. or any other union on the National Joint Council. Secondly, there is no closed shop as such in either of the Airways Corporations. Thirdly, it is no responsibility of the Government or of management if there is pressure by one union for members of another union to join their ranks.
Finally, the Chairmen of the Corporations have given an undertaking that they will not countenance victimisation of individual members of the A.E.A., and I am confident they will continue to examine carefully any such allegations which may arise in the future but which, I hope with all my heart, will diminish as a result of this afternoon's debate.

BARRACKS, CHATHAM (OCCUPATION)

3.3 p.m.

Mr. A. G. Bottomley: This is the first time that the Under-Secretary of State for War has been here to reply personally to a query raised by me on an Adjournment debate. May I express the hope that in looking at the matter which I am about to raise he will apply to it the same energy and gallantry as he showed both as a diplomat in the Soviet Union and as a soldier in Yugoslavia?
If the hon. Gentleman looks at the file on this question he will find that it shows nothing but delay and dilatoriness on the part of those who have been responsible. It is little to be wondered at that one of the local newspapers said:
For more than four years these 200 year-old barrack blocks have been looking down on the weeds that have sprung up on the deserted parade ground while the War Office and the Admiralty dicker about their future.

The paper then suggests that I might hint, gently, of course, so as not to hurt anyone's feelings—they are probably thinking of the festive season—that the people who have to pay the piper are getting a little bit tired of having no tune.
The Under-Secretary will find that the only thing done in the last four years as a positive measure has been the action taken in changing the name of the barracks from Royal Marine to Medway. This matter is of great importance to my constituency because rates are being lost the receipt of which is necessary for the well-being of the town, and the local shopkeepers and traders are suffering in their businesses. This is of vital local concern.
I should not have raised the matter for that alone, but this question is one of national importance, too. We must recognise that our defence burden is much heavier than we can afford, but we must have it to prevent aggression and to retain our freedom and liberty. At a time when we are having to do that we certainly should not waste money. The impression I have as a result of inquiries in this House is that a good deal of the money spent on defence is, in this connection anyway, being wasted.
The original estimate to put the Royal Marine barracks at Chatham into a reasonable state of habitation was. I am told, about£135,000. Subsequently, the figure was put at£250,000. Rumour has it that now the figure is£500,000. I believe that a good deal of this additional burden is due to neglect and the way in which the whole buildings have been allowed to deteriorate in the last few years.
It was a great blow to the town when we lost the Royal Marines from Chatham. Indeed, the Admiralty recognised the importance of the matter. They invited a very strong delegation from the constituencies of Gillingham and Rochester and Chatham, and the First Lord told the delegation that everything that was said was of a confidential character which must be treated as such. We respected that. Also present, in addition to the First Lord, were the Permanent Secretary and the General Officer Commanding the Royal Marines. We acknowledge the respect that was shown to the delegation. The General Officer Commanding the Royal Marines was able to


convince us that the Marines had to go elsewhere because of their training requirements.
Before that, we were given a solemn assurance by all present that another shore - based establishment—H.M.S. "Ceres"—would take their place. We were told that the matter was confidential and that Parliament had to be told first. To the best of my knowledge, Parliament has never been told that H.M.S. "Ceres" is not coming—at least, not by the First Lord. It is true that the hon. Member for Gillingham (Mr. Burden), at the end of an Estimates debate, pressed the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty to answer a question I had asked, and he promised to consider the matter, but the First Lord has not made that statement to Parliament which he said was necessary. It is true that he told me privately that other arrangements would be made. He said that it was intended to transfer the Marine barracks to the Army.
There were doubts during the period of office of the Labour Government about H.M.S. "Ceres" coming to Chatham and those doubts were reinforced in a letter sent to me in September, 1950. In October, 1950, in reply to a Question, the Civil Lord of the Admiralty said:
There has been no decision in the Admiralty that H.M.S 'Ceres' should not be transferred to Chatham. The position is that the adaptation of the Royal Marine barracks to accommodate the 'Ceres' involves a substantial amount of building work which has had to be considered in the light of the requirements of defence programme. The decision has now been taken that the work involved in adapting the premises for H.M.S. 'Ceres' should proceed."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 25th October, 1950; Vol. 478, c. 2782.]
At that time the then Mayor of Chatham was considering making representations about the use of the site for housing purposes. That would have been very useful for the local authority, but upon that assurance he dropped the suggestion. It was not until 1952 that the new First Lord invited a deputation to the Admiralty, when we were told that H.M.S. "Ceres" was not coming.
At the time when the decision to transfer H.M.S. "Ceres" to Chatham was negatived, I was a member of the then Government. I had no knowledge of the decision. If I had been informed I certainly should have raised the matter

with the Prime Minister. I asked the then First Lord to raise the matter with the Government as a whole, because this involved the breaking of a solemn promise by a previous First Lord. I regret that, to this day, to the best of my knowledge, the First Lord of the Admiralty has not pursued the matter further. I have dealt substantially with the Admiralty, because I believe that in the main this is its responsibility. The bulk of the criticism must be levelled at the Admiralty. But the War Office cannot escape responsibility, because in due course the First Lord told me privately, as I said a moment ago, that the Royal Marine barracks would be transferred to the Army.
The Secretary of State for War sent me a letter in which he said that was so, and that the Royal Engineers were going there. That was subsequently confirmed by the Under-Secretary, who said that it was
still intended to use the barracks for the Royal Engineers. I have now received a full report of the work to be done. You can be assured that everything possible will be done to carry out the work as speedily as circumstances permit.
And the date was 19th November, 1953.
In due course I put a Question on the Order Paper. The Under-Secretary of State replied, on 23rd November:
Negotiations for the transfer of these barracks to the Army are still proceeding.
I cannot understand that, because if they are "still proceeding." how is it that the Under-Secretary of State could tell me that a full report had been received, and that work was to be carried out as speedily as possible? In his reply the Under-Secretary continued:
It is now clear from the detailed examination which has been carried out that much more work than was originally anticipated would have to be done on them before they could be fit for occupation. In the altered circumstances, I am unable to say when the barracks will be ready for occupation."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 23rd November, 1954; Vol. 533, c. 114.]
It is monstrous to put one in the position of being told that the Army are taking over the barracks, and that the Royal Engineers are going in, and then for one to receive a reply that negotiations are still proceeding. It would appear that someone is being misleading or that there must be a much better answer given


today than we have so far received. Not only has Parliament been ignored, but also the local government authorities. To this day the local council has not been told that H.M.S. "Ceres" is not coming to Chatham. It is too bad to treat elected members of local authorities in that way and a statement should be made before—

The Civil Lord of the Admiralty (Mr. Wingfield Digby): The hon. Member will not deny that in the Navy Estimates debate in 1952—as long ago as that—the Parliamentary Secretary did make this point. It was made clear, and I think that it would have received adequate publicity.

Mr. Bottomley: That is not good enough. The First Lord himself promised to make a statement to Parliament, and, as I have already said, towards the end of the Navy Estimates debate, when I raised the matter, the hon. Member for Gillingham (Mr. Burden), had to press the Parliamentary Secretary for the answer which was given. If the Civil Lord is suggesting that that is the way in which Parliament should be treated, and that solemn promises are to be broken, or that that is the way the local authorities are to be informed, then all I can say is that it is not the way in which to treat responsible people, and I am surprised that the Civil Lord should suggest it.

Mr. Digby: It was a proper reply to give on the subject at the time. A statement was also made in another place about the same time, so it cannot be said that the public was not duly informed.

Mr. Bottomley: I do not wish to pursue this matter, but if the Civil Lord is proposing to content himself with that, I consider that it is not a good augury for the future. Were I the Minister, I should not be content to tell a local authority, or Parliament, that that was the way they were to be informed of a decision which, as I have said, was taken in most solemn circumstances.
The members of the Medway Chamber of Commerce, who were interested, suggested that they might look at the place with a view to taking it over for industrial purposes. What was the reply in that case? I admit that these are my

own words, but the reply amounted, in effect, to, "Mind your own business." That is hardly the way in which to treat a responsible organisation.
I do not wish to take up the time of the House, but there is a lot more that could be said about this matter. There is a tradition between the Medway towns and the Services which will remain unimpaired whatever happens. But people in the Medway towns look upon this as an example of inefficiency at the centre, and of Ministerial muddle. Unless we get a decision about what is to be done with this valuable site in the future, I shall believe that what a noble Lord, a very high-ranking naval officer, had to say in another place is substantially true. He said, "It is a sign of a decadent mentality in Her Majesty's Government."

3.15 p.m.

Mr. F. A. Burden: I am grateful to the right hon. Member for Rochester and Chatham (Mr. Bottomley) for allowing me to intervene in the debate. I cannot go all the way with the right hon. Member, particularly in his criticisms of my right hon. Friend the First Lord about the information which was given. As a matter of fact on 6th March, 1952, when I pressed this matter—and I have spoken about it on several occasions—the Parliamentary Secretary made it perfectly clear in a statement that the "Ceres" was not coming to Chatham. That was published in the local papers, or at least copies of the speech and the information were sent to the local papers.
There is fault on both sides of the House, because the decision to remove the Royal Marines from Chatham was taken by the former Labour Government. That is what caused this present difficulty. Although, at the time, it was promised that "Ceres" would come to Chatham, it was decided by that same Government that "Ceres" should not go there. That Government did not inform the people of Chatham of that fact when they had the opportunity of so doing. They made the decision, and I submit that they ate just as guilty, in fact more so, than my right hon. Friend the First Lord.

Mr. Bottomley: That was three years ago.

Mr. Burden: This is an unfortunate matter. I have no doubt that the Admiralty files on this matter are very


sizable and I believe that far too much space has been taken up in HANSARD over it. It has now become not even a hardy annual, but is being brought up at frequent seasons of the year. It is a difficulty which is causing great concern in the Medway towns. Perhaps an indication of that concern is the frequent manner in which the right hon. Member for Rochester and Chatham and I ask for information on this subject. It is the cause of considerable loss of profit and business to tradesmen in the Medway towns and it has meant a considerable reduction in rateable value—about£4,000, I understand.
All the time those buildings are left unoccupied they are deteriorating. There is a crying need for accommodation for the Services, and I have frequently had cause to raise with the various Ministries concerned the difficulty of obtaining Service accommodation in my constituency and in the Medway towns. I hope that my hon. Friend, who has only recently taken up his office, will have some information for us today which will give satisfaction to us, and not merely delayed hope, in this matter.
I believe that the "buck" has been passed a little too often, and that it is time that a definite and final decision was made about what is to be done with these barracks. I hope that today we shall see the end of stonewalling. We know that there are difficulties and that expenditure has to be kept down as much as possible. But it appears to me that, if there is a shortage of accommodation for the forces—and there is in the Medway towns—some use can be made of these barracks. As I say, I hope that today we shall see the end of the need for these frequent interventions, not only from the right hon. Gentleman opposite but from myself, and that we shall have satisfaction.

3.20 p.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for War (Mr. Fitzroy Maclean): It may be useful if, first, I say something about the past history of this case and try to explain just how the War Office became involved in what had hitherto been a purely naval engagement. The Medway Barracks—as they are now called—at Chatham, are 174 years old. They were occupied for many years by the Royal Marines, but in 1952 the Admiralty decided that it did not need them any longer and

offered them to the War Office. Last year, after a preliminary examination, the War Office let the Admiralty know that it was prepared to take over the barracks, provided that, upon further detailed examination, they proved suitable, and also provided that agreement could be reached regarding the terms of the hand-over. It was also necessary to reach agreement concerning certain related sites and buildings, such as married quarters, which formed part of the barracks.
The right hon. Member for Rochester and Chatham (Mr. Bottomley) suggested that the reply which I gave him in the House last month sought to qualify the undertakings which had been given him at one time or another that the barracks would be occupied by an Army unit. I must point out that the War Office, all along, has said that its intention was to take over these barracks if negotiations could be satisfactorily concluded, and provided that those negotiations included a careful scrutiny of what was offered, so that it could be sure that in undertaking this very considerable work of modernisation it was taking on a sound economic proposition and not something which was going to be just a waste of public money. That was made quite clear at the outset, and we have since stated that it is our intention to take over these barracks as soon as we were satisfied upon those points.
The right hon. Gentleman also complained at the delay which has ensued since the matter was first raised. There again, I must point out that before taking a final decision in a matter of this kind we were bound to satisfy ourselves about a number of important points. One cannot forget that a very considerable sum of public money is involved—the right hon. Gentleman himself mentioned various quite considerable sums—and when it is borne in mind that the buildings in question are 174 years old it must be agreed that it was clearly necessary to make quite certain that the life of these buildings and the probable cost of their future maintenance would justify the considerable capital expenditure involved.
It has also been necessary to prepare a detailed breakdown of costs, to make sure that the cost per head for each soldier thus accommodated would not be greater than if we scrapped the whole


project and provided brand-new accommodation—which is an alternative possibility. Finally, we had to make quite sure that, after they had been reconstructed, the barracks would be large enough to house the depot of the Royal Engineers for which they were needed. That has not been an easy point to decide. Upon investigation it did not look as if they would be large enough, and there had to be a certain amount of discussion to discover whether the Royal Engineers could reduce the number of soldiers for whom they required accommodation, or whether we could fit in more than we thought possible in the first place.
All that is bound to take time and a great deal of detailed planning, and detailed planning inevitably takes much longer when one is trying to fit a unit or formation, or any number of soldiers, into old buildings which are not necessarily suited for the purpose, than when one is building completely new accommodation to meet one's needs. It is a question of trying to adapt these very solid buildings to meet our needs, rather than to start off with a completely new project.
Even so, a final decision would have been very much nearer by now if it had not been for the comparatively recent discovery that the barracks contained a considerable amount of dry rot—the full extent of which is not yet known. That has made the planning of alterations even more difficult than it would otherwise have been, because we cannot be sure that some parts of the buildings will not have to be written off altogether and simply pulled down, in which case the question of how many men can be accommodated will be re-opened.
It has also made it necessary for us to review the whole question of costs, because it is well known that repairing the damage from dry rot can be a very expensive business. We have therefore had to institute a separate inquiry by experts in order to ascertain the full extent of the damage by dry rot, so that we can satisfy ourselves before starting operations that the undertaking really would be an economic proposition, and that we should be justified in taking over these barracks from the Admiralty.
In conclusion, I should like to assure the right hon. Gentleman that I very much regret the considerable delays

which have necessarily arisen, and that I appreciate the very genuine anxiety of the people of Chatham that these barracks should have remained unoccupied for so long. There has been a long and happy connection between Chatham and the Services in general, and between Chatham and the Royal Engineers in particular; and we are extremely anxious that, if it is at all possible, that connection should be further consolidated by the transfer of the depot of the Royal Engineers to these barracks. I can assure the right hon. Gentleman that I, personally, am taking all possible steps to ensure that the investigation is expedited, and that a final decision in this matter is reached with the very minimum of delay.

NATIONAL WATER SUPPLIES

3.30 p.m.

Mr. W. R. Rees-Davies: I am indebted to you, Mr. Speaker, for the opportunity to raise today issues involving our national water supplies, and I wish to draw the attention of the Government to the immediate need for a clear cut national water policy in certain respects.
In no other industry is the Minister given the specific duty to promote a national policy as exists under Section 1 of the Water Act, 1945. It seems clear that there are two main lines of progress for this industry. Firstly, is the completion of a piped water supply to those rural areas at present not supplied; and, secondly, the merger or combination of some of the smaller undertakings to ensure maximum efficiency by this reorganisation. This merger must, in the words of the former Parliamentary-Secretary, pay full regard to local feelings and to the long traditions of many of the water undertakings.
While I desire to outline briefly the satisfactory background of our water supply, it is this latter issue, namely, the method of administrative reorganisation, to which I wish to draw attention today. I should like to pose at the outset three specific questions for the Minister. First, have the Government given favourable consideration to the admirable report of the British Waterworks Association on the organisation of this industry; second, will the Government pursue the general lines of that report as contained in its


recommendations, so far as organisation of the industry is concerned; third, do the Government accept the principle that there is no need to create regional water boards where there is an efficient local undertaking upon which to build, and through whose services any required merger may be effected. These three propositions, to my mind, raise the main issues for the administrative reorganisation of this industry.
I now turn briefly to the background. Britain supplies to a proportion of the population more water than does any other country in the world. It supplies the purest cheapest water in the world. Actually less than 5 per cent. of our people are without a piped supply, whereas in America the figure is 40 per cent., and in France as many as half of the people are without such supplies. On an average, the private person consumes 10,000 gallons of water each year, at a cost of roughly£1 per head. Within the next decade, the problem of supplying piped water for the remainder of the rural dwellers should be effectively conquered.
In the summer, the quantity of water supplied daily reaches the staggering figure of over 2 million gallons, and each day the average consumed per person is between 40 and 45 gallons for all purposes, including industry. No suggestion, therefore, can be made that the supplies of water afforded by the authorities in this country are inadequate, or that the price of between 1s. and 2s. per 1,000 gallons is not impressively cheap. I should point out also the fact that the price of 1s. per head per week for a house of a rateable value of£21 per annum is only a 1¼d. greater than the figure in 1929, when it was 10¾d. Therefore, the cost is hardly any greater than pre-war.
The storage capacity in England and Wales is between 2 million and 3 million gallons, enough to supply the whole country for 100 days, even if every well became dry and every river stopped flowing. The position of the suppliers is as follows. Four-fifths of the people in England and Wales are served by only 120 undertakings. Only the remaining one-fifth therefore is supplied by 800 small undertakings. The major problem with which I wish to deal in this industry is this large number of small undertakings which, in some cases, lack the necessary resources for efficiency. Size alone is no

criterion, but it is generally agreed that art undertaking should be large enough to employ qualified technical staff and up-to-date equipment.
However, water supply, by the nature of water, is essentially a local service. Water cannot be generated; it must be taken from where it is found; nor can it flow uphill without the aid of pumps, hence levels and pressures are of overriding importance. The position was admirably stated in the White Paper in 1944, called, "A National Water Policy," and I quote the following terms:
The supply of wholesome water as a public service has a long and creditable history in this country.… In most of our great cities the water undertakers, whether municipal or company, can look with legitimate pride on what has been achieved. The scientific knowledge, technical skill and enterprise, which has gone to the supplying of water to London, Birmingham, Bristol, Liverpool, Manchester and Sheffield, not to mention other cities, have been of the highest standard and the local administration of these larger undertakings calls for no apology. This is true in varying degree in many of the smaller towns"—
It is true, may I say, in my own constituency, in the case of Margate and Ramsgate—
and also over large parts of the countryside.
Control of water is almost entirely in the hands of local authorities, which supply over 80 per cent. of the total population, and over 250 of the larger municipal undertakings have special Acts of Parliament which authorise water supply in their areas. There are also about 100 water companies operating under the authority of Parliament and supplying just under 9 million people in England and Wales, but there are very many smaller and uneconomic companies, often operating in rural areas. That is the background of the problem with which I wish to deal.
The problem of organisation can be stated thus. What method is best suited to achieve the maximum efficiency and ensure the right size of unit? To achieve the right size unit, particularly in regard to the smaller undertakings, will require amalgamations, and the Socialist answer to this is nationalisation.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Sir Rhys Hopkin Morris): It is not quite clear to me, but it appears that re-organisation will involve legislation in some form or another. If it does, it cannot be dealt with, but


if the hon. Member can deal with the matter without involving fresh legislation, that will be in order.

Mr. Rees-Davies: The powers are all contained in the Water Act, 1945, to effect the necessary reorganisation, with which I am dealing.
The Socialist answer to this problem, as set out on page 19 of "Challenge to Britain," is nationalisation, and I wish to quote the three appropriate lines:
Labour will bring all these undertakings into public ownership, and will place the responsibility of water supply upon the Central Government, creating such regional organisations as are necessary.

Mr. E. G. Gooch: Why not?

Mr. Rees-Davies: Nationalisation is wholly unsupported by anyone with knowledge of water supplies, is opposed by the local authorities, by every professional association, by the British Waterworks Association and by all professional men who have any knowledge of the industry. The Labour Party put forward the further suggestion of a national water grid, which is likewise opposed by all those people who have knowledge of water undertakings, for the simple reason that the cost of pumping throughout the country, plus the cost of the mains, would make such a suggestion wholly uneconomic.
The existing alternative, and I think this will reveal the point which you have just put to me, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, is the implementation of the Water Act, 1945. The immense duties placed upon this particular Ministry have proved too great for a Department of State, and it is quite clear that, over the past seven years, this Ministry has been incapable of providing any clear administrative policy for the water industry in the present structure of that Ministry.
The Water Act, 1945, the only Act to impose such duties, placed upon the Minister in Section 1 the duty to promote the conservation and proper use of water resources in England and Wales, and, in Section 2, provided for the setting up of a Central Advisory Council, which has done most admirable work through reports on gathering grounds, on the questions of water pollution, the purifying of water and also main drainage. This

Committee, therefore, is not mainly concerned with the effective day-to-day working of water authorities, nor with the administrative basis of the water industry.
The duty of administrative policy is placed by the Act on the Ministry, and it was intended by that Act, which both parties accepted, that advisory committees should be appointed to assist in carrying the burden. These committees have not been appointed, and, although the work of the Central Advisory Committee has been carefully and well carried out, no reorganisation or amalgamation that seems to me worth while has been effected in this industry at all.
The British Waterworks Association and the Water Companies Association, which are bodies of experience, have reported on the administrative changes which are necessary to assist the Minister in complying with these duties. In particular, they recommend that a body such as the Water Commissioners, who are somewhat analogous to the Electricity Commissioners, should be set up as a coordinating body to have general jurisdiction over the question of water supplies in this industry, and to advise the Minister on the problems while in no way affecting the structure of the ownership of the industry in this country. This body would be directly answerable to the Minister, and its duties are admirably set out in the Report of that association.
What action, therefore, is now required by the Minister? I envisage the following. While everybody can fully appreciate the immense burdens which have fallen on the Ministry of Housing in recent years, it is none the less true to say little effective action in this field has been taken. The excellent advice which was tendered as long ago as 1951 by the British Waterworks Association has not yet been adopted. The Ministry should give a lead to ensure the necessary amalgamations and mergers of small companies with larger undertakings in order to obtain maximum efficiency.
The amalgamation in Mid-Northampton, with its delays and difficulties, had a deterrent effect upon the Ministry. The effect of that was to bring about an erroneous view in the Ministry and in the minds of others that success could be achieved by the setting up of regional boards. This view is opposed both by the British Waterworks Association and by


the Water Companies Association in their Reports. The machinery of the Act should therefore now be used by the Minister in order to ensure these necessary mergers.
Success will also be achieved by the provision of a co-ordinating body to advise the Minister, and in that way voluntary amalgamation will be able to be obtained in the overwhelming number of cases. Where that cannot be obtained, then enforcement action may be taken. Water supplies, however, must remain essentially a local service. Local prestige and pride are largely at stake while so many of our local authorities have successfully maintained such water undertakings.
The regional boards, therefore, should not be the policy of the Government as they conflict with the principle of local services, and such boards would not have either the skill, or the experience which are already manifest in existing undertakings in this country, both under private enterprise and under local authorities.
I wish to conclude by drawing the analogy which affects my own, constituency, and Kent as a whole, and that is the recent unfortunate friction which has arisen in the case of the Kent Water Bill. That friction draws vivid attention to the failure of the policy of the Ministry to achieve the objects of the Water Act by effective administrative action. Had the amalgamations, within the frame work—

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: That Bill has passed this House and is now before the other House.

Mr. Rees-Davies: I am well aware of that, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, and am using it purely as an analogy of the failure to use the machinery on the national issue. I am concerned with it in this aspect and in relation to the failure of the Bill to fit within the framework generally of water policy. It is as an illustration that I am now concerned with the Bill.
Had the amalgamations, within the framework of private industry, been obtained, the need for the Kent County Council Water Bill would have been obviated. As it is, a comprehensive scheme was prepared, and the effect was that the Kent County Council picked up

a sledgehammer with which to crack a nut. The result is an unnecessary Bill, causing unnecessary friction, has been put forward to create an unnecessary board in order to add unnecessary expense to the ratepayers.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: The hon. Member is now discussing the Bill.

Mr. Rees-Davies: I am discussing the effect of the passage of the Bill, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. I referred to it merely as an illustration, because it brings vividly before one the whole problem of the necessity for this action under the terms of the Water Act.
In fairness, I would say that there were two strong undertakings, Margate and Ramsgate and two small and weak undertakings, including the Birchington and Westgate Company. The former strong undertakings can be merged by the action of the Minister under the Act with the smaller undertakings. If that had been achieved, local authorities could continue to meet local needs, and friction would be obviated.
In summing up, I invite the Minister to use the machinery of the 1945 Act in order to secure the necessary mergers, as he thinks fit. Secondly, he should accept the broad recommendations of the British Waterworks Association's Report to set up such independent bodies as may be necessary to give guidance on the manifold problems of water which are entirely subject to the Minister's control. Thirdly, and finally, he should state clearly the Government's intentions on their opposition not only to nationalisation and to a national water grid, but also to the setting up of regional water boards, where efficient undertakings are operated and where local needs and local people are able to meet the necessary problems.

3.47 p.m.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Housing and Local Government (Mr. W. F. Deedes): I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Thanet (Mr. Rees-Davies) for raising this subject today. It is a topic on which discussion is welcome and useful. I am grateful to him also for having given me notice in advance of the points he proposes to make, as this has enabled me to meet at least some of them.
As my hon. Friend has indicated, a great deal remains to be done in this field. That is indisputable and, in this immense field, hardly surprising. Neither he nor anyone else should, however, overlook how much has been done. Perhaps I might start off by saying a word about the achievements in this field, which not everybody recognises.
There has been an immense and surprising increase in water consumption during the last 12 years. One example is from Birmingham, where the daily consumption increased from 37 to 49 million gallons. In the Tees Valley the increase is from 19 million to 28 million gallons, and in the Metropolitan Water Board area from 299 million to 320 million gallons. On top of that, big social and industrial developments have had to be met, as well as the heavy arrears created by the war.
Since 1945, that is in nine years, the total value of water supply schemes authorised in England and Wales has been£93,064,072 in urban areas and£48,392,403 in rural areas. Since 1945, over 28,000 miles of mains have been laid, amounting to an increase of one-third in about eight years. Our storage capacity has gone up by 25 per cent. At the time of the 1951 census there remained 2¼million people—more than 5 per cent. of the population of England and Wales—living in households with no piped water. About three-quarters of that number were in rural areas.
As my hon. Friend has said, there remains a formidable task, but it should be laid against the background of what has been done. The capital costs of water supply schemes started in England and Wales since the war amount to£142 million. The present rate of start is£20 million a year. Obviously, some of the rural areas still present an enormous problem, and considerable expense, both for central and local government, because we contribute generous assistance. The rural share is not unsatisfactory, because out of the£142 million it is£48½million. That proportion is being maintained. It should not be many years before piped supplies are extended to virtually all the remaining sizeable villages.
So much for what the military call the "Q" side. Now I wish to say a word

on what they call the "I" or Intelligence organisation. A great deal has been done, as foreshadowed by the 1944 White Paper and provided for by the 1945 Act, to collect and sift information about needs, sources and supplies. Engineers on the staff of the Ministry have completed a series of surveys in almost the whole of England and industrial Wales, and that does not include the river gauging by the river boards. The body of information so far built up offers most valuable guidance for the future.
Now I come to what I know my hon. Friend is principally interested in, which might be called the "A" side, or Administration, of the industry. He asked me to answer three questions, the principal two of which were related to the report of the British Waterworks Association. We have, of course, studied this very stimulating report, and how far we have followed its recommendations I hope will emerge to my hon. Friend as I go on to explain what our policy has been and is.
To begin with, he will know that the Central Advisory Water Committee was appointed in 1946. From 1951 its sittings were suspended for reasons of economy, but, as has been recently announced, it is to be revived. It will be invited to set up a sub-committee to advise the Minister on all questions relating to the collection, collation and use of information about water resources, and I may add that we are hoping to have substantial scientific representation on the sub-committee.
I am fully aware that some people, including my hon. Friend, I think, would like to see something bigger and stronger than the revived Central Advisory Water Committee. This was the point of much that he was saying. I would only say that it is generally agreed that central direction and co-ordination are necessary for the proper planning and use of the country's water resources. Various types of organisation have been suggested which could carry out this function and be either semi-independent of or responsible to a Minister.
Experience with central bodies of this kind in other fields causes one some doubt on the effectiveness of such an arrangement. If the Minister is to have ultimate responsibility and be answerable to Parliament, he cannot hand over completely his duties with regard to the whole


field of work. If, on the other hand, he retains a great measure of responsibility, the establishment of another central body as well as the Department means that there are three sets of people involved in the industry instead of two.
The Ministry has had a long and close association with the water industry since the days of the Local Government Board, and I cannot accept the suggestion of my hon. Friend that our onerous duties have led to our incapacity to meet the requirements of the water industry. There is no reason why a Government Department should not be able to carry on the wider duties of co-ordination imposed on the Minister by the 1945 Act. The appointment of the Central Advisory Water Committee ensures that the Minister can call on the advice and knowledge of all the different interests and organisations connected with water resources and supplies.
My hon. Friend had something to say about the joint regional advisory committees. The 1945 Act made special provision for the establishment of these advisory committees. Subsequently it was decided that information should first be collected in the engineers' surveys; and no statutory committees came into being. There is no doubt that these regional advisory committees could play a useful part in the future, but we want to get the basic organisation right first. I can say that in certain areas a much clearer pattern is now emerging, and the ground offers better prospects for setting up some joint advisory committees. I hope that will be some encouragement to my hon. Friend.
I do not deny that the task of recasting this industry's organisation remains formidable. As my hon. Friend said, in 1945 there were nearly 1,200 undertakings and there are still over 1,000, 951 of them local authority undertakings. Since the 1945 Act, 121 water undertakings have gone out of existence. Some of the companies have amalgamated, some local authorities have taken over companies and some local authorities have combined, by agreement, into joint boards, such as the three which now, between them, supply a large part of Devon.
My hon. Friend suggests that progress might be faster. That is arguable, but

it has yet to be shown that the 1945 Act cannot achieve it. We believe that it can and that it has yet to be put to the test. It has been suggested that it has already proved itself incapable of meeting the requirements, but we do not think this is so. If that were so proven when it was put to the test, certainly we should think again.
My right hon. Friend urges water undertakers to come forward with proposals, relying on the procedure which the Act offers. My hon. Friend has mentioned—and I will not follow him in detail—the Kent Water Bill, which is the most ambitious move in this category of reorganisation. But my hon. Friend knows as well as I know that that Measure did not reach its present stage without a tremendous amount of preparatory work and negotiations.
I stress that because it reflects on a suggestion that, given different powers, or by different methods, we could get reorganisation at the gallop. Local feelings play a very strong part in this, as my hon. Friend rightly said; and it is right and proper that that should be so, and it ought to be recognised. Many of these undertakings have long traditions of which they are very proud, and that, certainly, ought to be recognised, too.
There is more than one way whereby we can achieve co-ordination. I differ from my hon. Friend in thinking that perhaps the best way, within the framework of local government, may be the joint board, in which the authorities concerned are partners. The advantages of the joint board are that it safeguards local interests, offers a certain flexibility and, above all, secures a strong enough group to afford competent engineers and staff—and the engineer is the cardinal factor in efficiency in the water world. Moreover, such boards enlist the experience and the wisdom of those men and women who for many years have given generously of their services to local public service—work which is sometimes taken for granted.
In conclusion, I think all this holds forth a reasonable prospect. Bearing in mind the physical progress which we have made and to which I referred at the beginning of my speech, the prospect is far from discouraging.

STORM DAMAGE, WEST LONDON (ASSISTANCE)

3.59 p.m.

Mr. S. P. Viant: I desire to speak this afternoon on the effects of the tornado or whirlwind, as it is called, which struck the suburbs of West London on 8th December. It struck my constituency, West Willesden, at 5 o'clock in the afternoon or just afterwards.
The force of that wind was responsible for hurling a large number of chimney stacks through the roofs of many houses. I received a telephone call about 5.30 p.m. asking me to go home, but I found it difficult to do so because the train service was delayed. I arrived in the vicinity about 7.15 and I found about six or seven fire brigades in the locality distributing tarpaulins.
It reminded me of the days of the blitz. I saw tiles and debris everywhere and it aroused painful memories of the war. I understand that, after surviving the shock, a number of people got in touch with the town hall and asked for assistance. They were informed by those in authority that similar calls had been made from those who occupied requisitioned and council property and of necessity those in authority were compelled to attend to those requirements first. Then those affected got in touch with the fire brigade. The fire brigade worked through Wednesday night and until the early hours of Thursday. It did the same on Thursday, Friday, Saturday and even Sunday. It rendered signal service.
I should like to avail myself of the opportunity of expressing my gratitude, and that of those affected, for the signal service rendered by the fire brigade. It did a remarkable job in exceedingly dangerous circumstances, when one considers that some of the chimney stacks were overlaying on the roofs to the extent of three or four feet. They were a danger to anyone who attempted to go out of doors. The fire brigade had no easy task in dealing with the situation, but, none the less, so far as it was able, it supplied those in need with tarpaulins to render first-aid to their property. A large number of houses are still in that situation.
On the Thursday afternoon, I got in touch with the Minister of Works, explained the situation to him, and asked whether any tarpaulins were available. He said, "There are plenty, but, first, you better get in touch with the Minister of Housing and Local Government." Unfortunately, that Minister was in conference. I placed all the particulars before his secretary. I presume that at the end of the conference the facts were laid before the Minister. I had no reply that evening as, unfortunately, it was sent here. Next morning I telephoned the office and was informed that an official of the Department would be in the vicinity that day and, no doubt, would visit the town hall. That did not help me much in getting tarpaulins.
Probably I had assumed too much by assuming that, having made my request, the machine would get to work. I am not desirous of apportioning blame either to the Minister, or the Department, or to my local authority. What I am concerned about is that there should be some liaison between local authorities and the Ministry of Housing and Local Government so that if such an incident occurred again the requisite aid should be given to the local authority and, through the local authority, to those affected.
During the war we always had a Civil Defence Corps upon which to depend. We did not have that on this occasion but we are very grateful for all the services which were rendered by the fire brigade. When the officials of the Ministry of Housing and Local Government attended the Town Hall he informed the local authority that it would be permitted to carry out first-aid repairs, but that the whole of the expenditure must fall upon the local ratepayers. I was concerned that the necessary tarpaulins should have been available and placed at the disposal of the victims of these incidents as speedily as possible and I had hoped that the machine would have been put into operation in that way. I hope that as a result of raising the matter today the machine will operate more rapidly should incidents of this kind occur again.
We find ourselves in this position. The local authority has decided to grant loans to those who are not covered by insurance, but I find that the majority of people are only insured against fire. The policy covering storm and tempest is


quite a modern policy which has only become known or been made effective in recent years. Quite a large number of the owner-occupiers were not aware that it was possible to obtain such a policy.
The builders' estimates are now coming in and I find that in many cases they amount to£190,£250 and£300 and even£500, so great was the damage. I can speak of my own house, for which the builder's estimate is£195, but, fortunately, I had taken out the improved policy about three years ago. Three houses away from mine there is an old lady of 84 years of age, an old-age pensioner, receiving a supplementary allowance from the National Assistance Board. The estimate of the damage done to her house is£300. There are a number of similar cases. It would be quite impossible for many of these people to take the load. I hope that the Minister will be able to render some assistance to the local authorities. Not only Willesden but Acton and Chiswick and local authority areas in the western suburbs have been affected.
I saw in "The Times" of yesterday some facts about the Lord Mayor's National Flood and Tempest Distress Fund. The facts are that the public subscribed£5,149,000 and it will be remembered that when this fund was launched the House supported the Government in their proposal to give£ for£. If the Government carried out the undertaking which was supported by this House they would have subscribed an equal amount of£5,149,000. But according to the figures that are given here in "The Times," though the Government promised£ for£ donation, so far the Tresury have been called on to provide only£1,750,000. A sum of£6,800,000 has been spent.
Working out these figures, I find there should be a balance of£3,498,000, let us say,£3 million. I endeavoured to put a Question to the Chancellor of the Exchequer within a few days after these incidents had occurred, to ask that representations might be made to the administrators of this Fund whereby a grant could be made from it to assist the people affected by this tornado. But owing to the fact that the Government had given this grant unconditionally the Table was unable to accept my Question.
I am now asking for the help of the Minister of Housing and Local Government so that representations may be made that some of the surplus in this Fund may be put at the disposal of local authorities to assist the victims of these incidents. I want to leave time for my hon. Friend the Member for Acton (Mr. Sparks) to say a few words on behalf of his constituency. I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary will seriously consider the points which I have made.

4.13 p.m.

Mr. J. A. Sparks: I am very pleased to have the opportunity of associating my constituency with the appeal made by my hon. Friend the Member for Willesden, West (Mr. Viant), because we in Acton also suffered the effects of the tornado which struck us on 8th December. In addition to ploughing up part of Willesden, it passed through my constituency, where it did damage to 429 houses. Of these, 119 were council property, 60 were requisitioned houses, and the remaining 250 were private houses.
It is quite true, as my hon. Friend has said, that this occurrence almost equalled some of the major air raids during the war. In fact, there were many air raids that left behind very much less damage than this tornado. Although in many cases the most of the damage is of a minor character, a good deal of it will cost a good deal of money to put right. In seven cases alone the damage to private houses means an expenditure of£500 to effect the necessary repairs, and, while many of the householders concerned will be covered by insurance policies, there are quite a few who are small people, owner-occupiers living in their little houses, who have not the means to find anything from£50 up to£500 to repair the damage.
I ask the Minister to give special consideration to this problem because, as far as we can find out, there is no source of assistance available which could be utilised to help the people who are now in distress to repair their damaged property. I ask the hon. Gentleman to remember that the worst of the winter months are beginning to come upon us—January, February and March—and that most of these damaged houses are now covered by tarpaulins. It can therefore, be imagined what kind of life people will have in a house, half of the roof of which


is blown off and the walls of which are blown out. A tarpaulin or two over such a house does not keep out all the wet, and certainly does not keep out the wind.
Unless the hon. Gentleman can find means of speeding up the repair of these properties, a considerable number of people will have to suffer directly this winter as a consequence of the tornado. Although the hon. Gentleman may not be able to give an answer in regard to my own constituency, I can assure him that this matter affects many people who live in the neighbourhood of West London. I hope he will be able to expedite the repair of these damaged houses so that people living in them may not have to go through the experiences of winter under the conditions I have outlined.

4.17 p.m.

Mr. Malcolm McCorquodale: I want to add my plea to that of the hon. Member for Willesden, West (Mr. Viant). It was 25 years ago that I fought an election in that area, but I can well remember that portion of the constituency, which is occupied largely by the best type of small owner-occupiers, and I can well understand the distress that has been caused. It seems to me that there is a real gap in our national financial arrangements in circumstances of this kind, and if my hon. Friend can offer any help, I am sure he will be rendering a valuable service.

4.18 p.m.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Housing and Local Government (Mr. W. F. Deedes): I want to begin by expressing on behalf of my right hon. Friend the Minister of Housing and Local Government sincere sympathy for those in this part of South Middlesex whose homes suffered damage to a greater or lesser extent by this freak storm. Whatever administrative action is or is not taken, it is inevitable that some families will not spend Christmas in the comfortable surroundings to which most of us are looking forward, and that is obviously a matter for condolence and sympathy.
May I, first, summarise what happened on the night of 8th December. The violent windstorm of that night affected about 800 houses, with widely differing results. In Willesden, the estimate is that six were seriously damaged, 20 were

medium-damaged and 300 were slightly damaged. In Acton, it is estimated that 50 were seriously damaged and perhaps 300 were slightly damaged. In Brentford and Chiswick, six were seriously damaged and 150 suffered medium and slight damage. I have seen the detailed reports on this damaged property made by our own staff and also accounts of the first-aid provided immediately by local resources. I have also studied the report of proceedings of the Willesden General Purposes Committee, which met on 14th December.
From what the hon. Members for Willesden, West (Mr. Viant) and Acton (Mr. Sparks) have said, it seems that I have here two issues to meet. The first is the immediate action of local authorities, supplemented, if necessary, by national resources, and their adequacy or otherwise. The second is financial provisions for meeting the cost of the damage. One might be termed the short-term and the other the long-term aspect of the matter.
It really cannot be said that emergency resources were lacking for immediate action or that the Ministry failed to offer promptly to supplement them. On the point raised by the hon. Member for Willesden, West, I have to say that an adequate supply of tarpaulins, with the assistance of the Ministry of Works, who actually produced them, was made available to Acton, Brentford and Chiswick and offered to Willesden, but the offer was refused by Willesden. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman did not realise that when he mentioned the point.
The offer was telephoned on 9th December, the day after the night of the storm. On 10th December the Ministry architect toured the area and inspected the damage. It is clear that local action had the immediate situation under control within 24 hours. I am glad that the hon. Gentleman referred to the Fire Service, which acted with its invariable promptitude in rendering first-aid repairs and setting the tarpaulins, a difficult but useful function.
There is a point about dangerous buildings which is important. Under Section 58 of the Public Health Act, 1936, a local authority can apply to a court of summary jurisdiction to make an order calling upon the owner to render a dangerous building safe, and where the


owner fails to do the work, the local authority can do it and charge the owner. If there is danger to the public, subsection (3) of that Section enables a local authority to take immediate action to shore up a building and recover the cost.
It is not disputed that local builders had the material and labour to meet requirements without any supplementary resources being brought in from the outside. The county council, which was not called upon, had welfare powers for dealing with homeless and for feeding where necessary. Happily, very few cases arose in this instance. Those powers for feeding facilities would have been available if called upon.
I want now to meet the second, and perhaps more difficult point—the financial provisions for meeting the cost of the damage. I do not think it is disputed by either hon. Gentlemen opposite that the chief difficulty arises because in some cases of damage—it is difficult to say how many—the owners were insured only for fire and not for flood or tempest. No difficulty arises over local authority housing. It is only with the owner-occupiers that we are concerned.
One hon. Gentleman opposite said that many were unconscious of their obligations and of the wisdom of so insuring. I feel bound to add that I think it will be accepted that normal prudence, particularly in view of what has happened during the past two or three years, might suggest to house owners that it is wise to insure against these risks. It is not altogether an obligation on others—

Mr. Viant: Some of the owner-occupiers were unaware that it was possible to obtain such a policy and others took it for granted that they were covered for these risks until they were informed that that was not the case. That is the important point.

Mr. Deedes: I do not dispute that for a moment, but if one is a house owner and has responsibility for one's home, one has some obligation to cover one's risk as a house owner.
It is this contingency which gives rise to the feeling of hon. Gentlemen opposite that the Lord Mayor's Flood and Tempest Distress Fund or national resources ought to be available. It is obvious that I can make no comment about the Lord Mayor's Fund, and I am sure that the

hon. Gentleman does not expect me to make any indication in that respect. With two exceptions, which I shall mention, such charges have never been national, but have always fallen on the local authorities concerned. The two exceptions were the war damage legislation, which no longer operates, and distress on the scale of the Lynton-Lynmouth and East Coast floods of recent years.
In such cases as those, all national feeling apart, it may be held that the magnitude of the disaster has swamped local financial resources. It is important to draw that distinction because, clearly, that is not the case in South Middlesex. I am speaking here of local authority finance.

Mr. Sparks: Is the hon. Member now saying that local authorities may make a contribution from the rates?

Mr. Deedes: If the hon. Member will wait, I am coming to that point. It is quite clearly not the case in South Middlesex that the magnitude of the disaster has overwhelmed local resources. I have not seen a final figure, but from the general survey of the damage we know, within reasonable limits, what it is likely to be.
It must be quite clear that the Minister has no statutory power—and it does not lie with us on this occasion to discuss what statutory provision there should be—to give blanket sanction for expenditure. What he can do is to indicate that where the local authorities incur expenditure on private property and subsequently fail to recover the cost he will give the necessary dispensation under Section 228 of the Local Government Act, 1933, which prevents what is called the surcharge by the district auditor. That is the normal method of dealing with emergency expenditure of this kind and in this case such dispensation, I understand, has already been indicated to the local authorities concerned. Hon. Members may take it that there will be no difficulty on that point.
Repairs done on behalf of private householders are an act of grace, as it were, by the local authority and, in the absence of an insurance policy, that is probably what will have to happen. I understand that the local authority has requested leave to make advances under Section 4 of the Housing Act, 1949, and


with certain modifications, which are not unreasonable, we have approved that course of action. The local authority received a letter to that effect within 48 hours of its writing to the Minister.
There has not been, on anyone's behalf, a lack of promptitude or help within statutory limitations. It is questionable whether it is desirable to create powers to deal with every possible contingency of this kind, or whether indeed it is even possible. We do not as a nation lack either resourcefulness or good will to meet such emergencies. Perhaps we should congratulate ourselves on having a climate which, mercifully, gives rise to these disasters at very infrequent intervals.

DARTFORD-PURFLEET TUNNEL

4.28 p.m.

Mr. Norman Dodds: My task this afternoon has been made comparatively easy, because official recognition has been given to the tremendous importance to South-East England of the Dartford-Purfleet Tunnel. The Minister made an announcement on 9th December, 1953, that work might recommence on the tunnel in the financial year 1955.
It was not anticipated, in December, 1953, that any date could be given for the start of the work. But on 19th May, 1954, I put a Question to the former Minister of Transport. I quote:
Mr. Dodds asked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation on what date work will recommence on the Dartford-Purfleet Tunnel.
THE MINISTER OF TRANSPORT AND CIVIL AVIATION (MR. ALAN LENNOX-BOYD): As the hon. Member knows, it is proposed to recommence work on this tunnel next year. I cannot at present be more precise than this as to dates."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 19th May, 1954; Vol. 527, c. 2072.]
Since then other people have been trying to ascertain when the work will recommence.
There is an influential organisation of industrialists and representatives of local governments that meets under the name of the South-East England Development Board. The Honorary Secretary is Mr. J. A. Crompton who is Town Clerk of Erith. Mr. Crompton recently prepared a statement for members of the board

and Members of Parliament in the area affected. I quote from it:
On the 9th December, 1953, the then Minister announced that the Government would enter into a commitment for the Dartford tunnel in the year 1955–56. In view of this, we have not asked the Minister to see the deputation.
That was a deputation which had been formed to ask that the Minister might meet them to clarify the situation.
Discussions with the Ministry's officers have, however, proceeded, from which it has emerged that before the main tunnelling work can be resumed, it will be necessary to spend about£40,000 on rehabilitation of the plant, some of which was damaged by the floods. Efforts have been made, with the Ministry's officers, to get this work of rehabilitation proceeded with and also to obtain a definite date from the Ministry for the recommencement of the tunnelling work. These efforts have met with no success.…
There is some concern among those who recognise the importance, not only of recommencing the work on the tunnel, but of having it completed, so that many of the troubles in the South-East can be solved.
I come back, in this chronicle of events, to a Question which I put to the new Minister of Transport as late as 17th November last. It was:
 Mr. DODDS asked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation what consideration has been given to deciding on what date in 1955 work will recommence on the construction of the Dartford-Purfleet Tunnel.
The Minister's reply was:
I am in touch both with the promoters and the consulting engineers about this.
In a supplementary question, I asked:
Since 1955 is only five or six weeks away, can he say on what date in 1955 this work can commence?
The Minister replied:
As the hon. Gentleman, who knows a great deal about this subject, will be aware, before the constructional work to which his Question refers can be started, it will be necessary to put in order the existing plant and equipment, which has been standing idle for a considerable time.
That was the first time, as far as I know, that the information was given about putting the equipment and plant into order, and so I asked:
On what date will that commence?
The Minister replied:
Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will put down that Question.


I gave notice that I would raise the matter on the Adjournment, and I gave it in this way:
As I think that I shall make greater progress with a friendly Joint Parliamentary Secretary, I beg to give notice that I shall raise this matter on the Adjournment."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 17th November, 1954; Vol. 533, c. 367–8.]
I must say that from that date until now I have had the greatest confidence in the Joint Parliamentary Secretary, and I am sure that if it is possible to put all our minds at rest he will be very happy to do so, not as a Christmas gift but because he is that type of person.
In the meantime, as my name was being thrown out every time in the Ballot, and I was not successful, I took the opportunity—I hope that it was not against the rules—of putting down one or two Questions to get clarification. On 24th November, I put down a Question in the following terms:
MR. DODDS asked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation on what date work will commence to put in order the existing plant and equipment connected with the proposed Dartford-Purfleet Tunnel; and when is it expected to complete this so as to enable a resumption to be made on the construction of the tunnel.
The Minister replied:
I have nothing to add at present to my previous answers on this subject."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 24th November, 1954; Vol. 187, c. 142.]
I did what the Minister suggested, and I still drew a blank.
There are many hon. Members, both on this side of the House and on the other, who would welcome a return to the days when the Joint Parliamentary Secretaries to the Ministry of Transport and Civil Aviation were allowed to answer some Questions from the Dispatch Box during Question Time. I know that is not a matter for the Joint Parliamentary Secretary now, but we hope that a new leaf will be turned in the New Year, and that we shall hear Joint Parliamentary Secretaries answering some Questions from that Box.
On 8th December, I put down another Question which I consider to be relevant to what we are discussing. It was as follows:
MR. DODDS asked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation if he will give the date, or dates, on which he contacted the consulting engineers concerning putting in order the plant

and equipment to enable progress to be made on the construction of the Dartford—Purfleet Tunnel; and if he can yet name the date when work will commence.
MR. BOYD-CARPENTER: The answer to the first part of the Question is early May, and to the second, 'No'."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 8th December, 1954; Vol. 535, c. 50.]
If it is a fact that the Ministry was discussing this in May with the constructional engineers, it is only to be expected that now, in December, there is some information about when this work will commence, as we are now within a few days of 1955.
There are many people who feel that a square deal has not been given in this important matter. We ask the Ministry to take us a little more into its confidence, because it must be realised that this matter is important. There is every indication that long before this tunnel is completed, and even with the best will in the world, conditions will be chaotic.
More and more vehicles are coming on to the roads, and as an illustration of what is now happening. I will quote an extract from the "Star."
Traffic jam in tunnel.
Heavy traffic caused congestion in Black-wall Tunnel and Woolwich Ferry today. Extra police were drafted to direct the traffic when long tines of cars and lorries were held up passing through the tunnel.
I am informed by people using the tunnel and the ferry that the state of affairs is becoming intolerable, and now extra police are asked for to look after this matter. Surely the police have plenty of work to do already without this extra job.
We are asking for the date when work on the tunnel will be recommenced, not at what date it will be completed—important as that is. In view of the fact that this project has been accepted as a matter of vital importance; that the Minister has said that the work will commence in 1955; that the South-East England Development Board has been discussing the matter with Ministry officials; that the Minister has given an answer to a Question that the tunnel engineers had been discussing this matter as long ago as May, I hope that today we shall get some answer which will placate us, at least for the Christmas holidays, and will give us full confidence that everything is going according to the plan visualised when the statement was made.
I do not need to take up any more time on this matter, because all we are asking for is that the date shall be named. If no date can be given today I would ask the Parliamentary Secretary to convey to the Minister the intimation that immediately the House resumes a request will, in all probability, be made that the Minister should meet a deputation, so that we may ask that and other questions. We hope that that will be unnecessary.

4.39 p.m.

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport and Civil Aviation (Mr. Hugh Molson): The hon. Member for Dartford (Mr. Dodds) is a skilful and persuasive Parliamentarian. He has tried all the blandishments which could well be mentioned in an effort to elicit from me information which he has been vainly endeavouring to obtain during the last many months from my two right hon. Friends. I very much appreciate the kind things that he has said about me, but I am sure that he would not expect me to be seduced from my duty, even by the most kindly and flattering remarks that he may make.
This project for the recommencement of the Dartford-Purfleet Tunnel was the most costly and important, in size, of all the schemes announced last year by my right hon. Friend who is now the Colonial Secretary. It will involve an expenditure of at least£10 million. If it had not been for our recognition of the urgent need for better communications between East Anglia and the South of England we should not have included it in that area programme. The hon. Member and his friends can be assured that we fully recognise the importance and the urgency of improving those communications.
The cost of£10 million made a very substantial hole in the programme which was announced last year. The hon. Member can derive some measure of encouragement from the fact that, this year, the Government have been able to announce a very great expansion of the programme that was announced last year. It was then the intention that expenditure upon roads should rise to a plateau of approximately£15 million a year. The Foreign Secretary, in a speech which the hon. Member probably heard, told the House that it was the Government's intention to increase that expenditure to two or three times that level.
The hon. Member can, therefore, rest assured that if we were prepared to find room for this very costly scheme last year, some steps to ensure the carrying out of a project of this kind, in order to improve connections across the lower reaches of the Thames, will certainly not be excluded and will not be unjustifiably or unnecessarily postponed.

Mr. Dodds: The hon. Member used the word "postponed." Can we know if there is any reason why it should be postponed? Has anything arisen since the announcement of December, 1953?

Mr. Molson: I cannot at present say exactly when works to improve communications between East Anglia and Southern England will be undertaken.
I was saying—and I repeat—that if we were prepared to find room for a scheme of this sort last year the hon. Member need not be under any apprehension that it will be excluded from our calculations this year. With so much more money at our disposal there can be no question of overlooking the urgent and pressing need for an improvement in communications, but I am not yet in a position to say exactly when the work will be authorised.
I think the hon. Member was a little misled by the reference to 1955. That reference was to the financial year 1955–56 and not to the calendar year 1955. As the hon. Member is aware, the financial year does not begin until 1st April, and it will be another three months before there is any question of undertaking even the rehabilitation of the plant. Therefore, I hope that he will not think it unreasonable that I am not yet in a position to say quite definitely when we shall authorise the commencement of that work. That decision is not at all likely to be taken before 1st April. We have only undertaken that the work shall be begun early in the next financial year.
The fact that we are now embarking upon a very greatly expanded scheme does mean that all those in the Department, whether engineers or administrators, who are concerned with our road and bridge programme are at the present time working overtime. Without making any binding promise, I can say that we hope that my right hon. Friend will be able to make a statement upon the whole


road and bridge programme soon after the House resumes in the New Year. It may well be that that will be before the end of January.
When we are engaged upon this great expansion of the existing programme, it is difficult for us to prepare the calculations and make the necessary arrangements for fixing the date of the commencement of any particular scheme among all those to which we are committed. I am very sorry indeed that I have to disappoint the hon. Gentleman, and that, even though he has been able to raise this matter upon the Adjournment, I am not in a position to add anything to what my two right hon. Friends have already said. I am not standing mute of malice, to use a legal expression, but a decision has not yet been reached; and, therefore, lacking the gift of prophecy, I fear that there is nothing more I can say.

Mr. Dodds: May I rid the hon. Gentleman of one illusion which is in his mind? He said that. I had probably been misled about the calendar or the

financial year. I ask him to look at all the Questions, and he will find that there is a good deal of clarity on that point. I would refer him to the OFFICIAL REPORT of 19th May, when the then Minister of Transport said:
As the hon. Member knows, it is proposed to recommence work on this tunnel next year." —[OFFICIAL REPORT, 19th May, 1954; Vol. 527, c. 2072.]
Next year is 1955—not 1956—which means the calendar year. The hon. Gentleman says that his right hon. Friend is likely to make an announcement about roads and bridges, and, I take it, tunnels, in January. Is it likely that he will then name the date for the starting of the tunnel in 1955?

Mr. Molson: I am quite sure that my right hon. Friend will make an announcement as soon as he is able to do so.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at Twelve Minutes to Five o'Clock till Tuesday, 25th January, pursuant to the Resolution of the House yesterday.